(/BR.^W 


NORTH  CAROLINA  STATE  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 


S01 224908  Q 


This  book  is  due  on  the  date  indicated 
below  and  is  subject  to  an  overdue 
fine  as  posted  at  the  circulation  desk. 


EXCEPTION:  Date  due  will  be 
earlier  if  this  item  is  RECALLED. 


JAfP  5  2001 


150M/01 -92-941 680 


<y'^. 


6 


i  n  '^ 


.^ 


■''1\\1 


ON  THE 


GENESIS  OF  SPECIES. 


BY 


ST.   GEOEGE  MIYART,  F.  R.  S. 


RODDOD    MD3M3 


NEW  YORK: 
D.    APPLETON    AND    COMPANY, 

549     &     651     BROADWAY. 
1871. 


< 
C) 


I 

■1 


SIR  IIENRl^ 


My  dear  Sir  Henry: 

In  giving 
this  work  to 
with  any  view 

I  simply  ava 


tribute   of  esteem   a' 
friend — the  fir 
of  Nature. 

I  rer 


7  NoRin  Bank,  Reof.i 

December  8,  1^0^ 


I  now  do, 
ntify  you 

of  paying  a 
est    scientific 
the  study 


Ever  faitlif^lly  yours 

GEORGE  MIVART. 


OOISTTENTS. 


CUAPTER  I. 

INTBODUOTOBT. 

The  Problem  of  the  Genesis  of  Species  stated. — Nature  of  Ita  Probable  Solution. — Im- 
portance of  the  Question. — Position  here  defended. — Statement  of  the  Darwikian 
Thkort. — Its  Applicability  to  Details  of  Geographical  Distribution ;  to  Rudimentary 
Structures ;  to  Homology ;  to  Mimicry,  etc. — Consequent  Utility  of  the  Theory. — 
Its  Wide  Acceptance. — Reasons  for  this,  other  than,  and  in  Addition  to,  Its  Scientific 
Value. — Its  Simplicity. — Its  Bearing  on  Religious  Questions. — Oduim  Theologicum 
and  Odium  Antitheologicum. — The  Antagonism  supposed  by  many  to  exist  be- 
tween It  and  Theology  neither  necessary  nor  tmlvcrsal. — Christian  Authorities  in 
favor  of  Evolution. — Mr.  Darwin's  "Animals  and  Plants  under  Domestication." — 
Difficulties  of  the  Darwinian  Theory  enumerated  .  .  .  .    p.  18 


CHAPTER  II. 


THB   INOOMPETENOT   OF   "  NATUBAL    SELECTION"   TO    AOOOUNT    FOB    THE    IN- 
CIPIENT STAGES  OF  USEFUL  8TBU0TUBE8. 


Mr.  Darwin  supposes  that  Natural  Selection  acta  by  Slight  Variations.— These  must  b« 
useful  at  once. — Difficulties  as  to  the  Giraffe ;  as  to  Mimicry ;  as  to  the  Heads  of 
Flat-fishes  ;  as  to  the  Origin  and  Constancy  of  the  Vertebrate  Limbs  ;  as  to  Whalo- 
bone ;  as  to  the  Young  Kangaroo ;  as  to  Sea-urchins ;  as  to  Certain  Processes  of 
Metamorphosis ;  as  to  the  Mammary -gland ;  aa  to  Certain  Ape  Charactara ;  aa  to 


>i* 


CONTENTS. 

the  Rattlesnake  and  Cobra ;  as  to  the  Procesa  of  Formation  of  the  Eye  and  Ear ,  as 
to  the  Fully-dovelopcd  Condition  of  the  Eye  and  Ear;  aa  to  the  Voice;  as  to  Shell- 
fish; as  to  Orchids;  aa  to  Ants. — the  Necessity  for  the  Slmuitiuieous  Modification 
of  Many  Individuals. — Sumumry  and  Conclusion  .  .  .  .    p.  85 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE    0OKXI8TENOK   0?   0L08ELY-BIMILAR   8TRUCTUBE8    OF   DIVERSE   ORIGIN". 

Chances  against  Concordant  Variations.— Examples  of  Discordant  Ones. — Concordant 
Variations  not  uuillieiy  on  a  non-Darwinian  Evolutionury  lIyix)thosi8. — Placental 
and  Implacentai  Mammals.— Birds  and  Keptllus.— Independent  Origins  of  Similar 
Sense  Organs. — The  Ear. — The  Eye. — Other  Coincidences. — Causes  besides  Natural 
Selection  produce  Concordant  Variations  In  Certain  Geographical  Kegions. — Causes 
besides  Natural  Selection  produce  Concordant  Variations  in  Certain  Zoological  and 
Botanical  Groups. — There  are  Homologous  Parts  not  genetically  reLited. — Harmony 
In  respect  of  the  Organic  and  Inorganic  Worlds. — Smnmary  and  Conclusion  .    p.  76 


CHAPTER  IV. 

MINUTE   AND   GRADUAL  MODIFICATIONS. 

There  are  Dlfflcultios  as  to  Minute  Modifications,  even  If  not  fortuitous. — Examples  of 
Sudden  and  Considerable  Modifications  of  Diflferent  Kinds.— Prof  Owen's  View. — 
Mr.  Wallace. — Prof.  Huxley. — Objections  to  Sudden  Changes. — Labyrinthodont. — 
Potto.— Cetacea.— As  to  Origin  of  Buxl's  Wing.— Tendrils  of  Cllmbhig  Plants.— 
Animals  once  supposed  to  be  Connecting  Links. — Early  Specialization  of  Structure. 
— Macrauchenla. — Glyptodon. — Sabre-toothed  Tiger. — Conclusion     .  .    p.  Ill 


CHAPTER  V. 

AS  TO    BPEOIFIO   BTABILITT. 

What  Is  meant  by  the  Phrase  "Specific  Stability;"  such  Stability  to  be  expected  a 
priorly  or  else  Considerable  Changes  at  once. — Rapidly -increasing  DllBculty  of  in- 
tensifying Race  Characters ;  Alleged  Causes  of  this  Phenomenon ;  probably  an  In- 


CONTENTS.  7 

ft 

tomal  Cause  coni)cratoB. — A  Certain  Dcflnltcnoss  In  Variations. — Mr.  Dar\vin  ad- 
mits the  Trlnciplo  of  Specific  Stability  In  Certain  Cases  of  Unequal  Variability. — 
The  Goose. — The  Peacock. — The  Guinea-fowl. — Exceptional  Causes  of  Variation 
under  Domestication. — Alleged  Tendency  to  Reversion. — Instances. — Sterility  of 
Hybrids. — Prepotency  of  Pollen  of  Same  Species,  but  of  Different  Race. — Mortality 
in  Young  Gallinaceous  Hybrids. — A  Bar  to  Intermixture  exists  somewhere.— 
Guinea-pigs. — Siunmary  and  Conclusion  .  .  .  .  .    p.  12T 


CHAPTER  VI. 

8PE0IES   AND   TIUE. 

Two  Relations  of  Species  to  Tlmo. — No  Evidence  of  Past  Existence  of  ^linutely- 
intermediato  Forms  when  such  might  be  expected  a  priori.— B&tA,  Pterodac- 
tyls, Dinosauria,  and  Bbxls.— Ichthyosauria,  Chelonia,  and  Anoura.— Horse  An- 
cestry.—Labyrinthodonts  and  Trilobitcs.- Two  Subdivisions  of  the  Second  Rela- 
tion of  Species  to  Time. — Sir  William  Thomson's  Views. — Probable  Period  re- 
quired for  Ultimate  Speclfio  Evolution  from  Primitive  Ancestral  Forms.— Geo- 
metrical Increase  of  Tlmo  required  for  Rapidly-multiplying  Increase  of  Structural 
Differences.— Proboscis  Monkey.— Time  required  for  Deposition  of  Strata  necea- 
sary  for  Dar^vinian  Evolution.— High  Organization  of  Silurian  Forms  of  Life.— 
Absence  of  Fossils  in  Oldest  Rocks. — Summary  and  Conclusion    .  .    p.  142 


CHAPTER  VII. 


SPECIES  AND   SPACE. 


The  Geographical  Distribution  of  Animals  presents  Difficulties.— These  not  insor- 
mountable  in  themselves ;  harmonize  with  other  Difficulties.- Fresh-water  Fishes. 
—Forms  common  to  Africa  and  India;  to  Africa  and  South  America;  to  China 
and  Australia;  to  North  America  and  China;  to  New  Zealand  and  South 
America;  to  South  America  and  Tasmania;  to  South  America  and  Australia. — 
Pleurodont  Lizards.- Insectivorous  Mammals.— Slmlbrity  of  European  and  South 
American  Frogs.- Analogy  between  European  Salmon  and  Fishes  of  New  Zea- 
land, etc.— An  Ancient  Antarctic  Continent  probable.— Other  Modes  of  accounting 
for  Facts  of  Distribution.- Independent  Origin  of  Close ly-slmllar  Forms.— Con- 
clusion         I'-^'^ 


8  CONTENTS. 


CnAPTEE  VIII. 

BOMOLOOIES. 

* 

Animals  made  up  of  Parta  mutually  related  In  Various  Ways.— What  Homology  la. 
— Ita  Various  Kinds. — Serial  Homology. — Lateral  Homology. — Vertical  Homology. 
—Mr.  Herbert  Bi>encer'8  Exi»lanaUons.— An  Internal  Power  noceasary,  as  shown  by 
Facta  of  CkimiMiratlve  Anatomy.— Of  Teratology.— M.  8t  llllalre.— Prof.  Burt  Wild- 
er.— Foot-wings. — Facts  of  Pathology. — Mr.  .Jumus  Paget — Dr.  Wllikm  Uudd. — 
The  Exifltence  of  such  an  Internal  Power  of  Indl\1dual  Development  diminishes 
the  Improbability  of  an  Analogous  Law  of  Specilic  Origination.         .  .    p.  1G9 


CHAPTER  IX. 

EVOLUTION   AND   ETUIOS. 

The  Origin  of  Morals  an  Inquiry  not  foreign  to  the  Subject  of  this  Book. — Modem 
Utilitarian  View  as  to  that  Origin.— Mr.  Darwin's  Speculation  as  to  the  Origin  of 
.  the  Abhorrence  of  IncosL — Cause  assigned  by  him  insufficienttr-Caro  of  the  Aged 
and  Infirm  opposed  by  ''Natural  Selection;"  also  Self-abnegation  and  Asceti- 
cism.—Distinctness  of  the  Ideas  "Eight"  and " Useful."— Mr.  John  Stuart  Mill.— 
Insufficiency  of  "  Natural  Selection "  to  account  for  the  Origin  of  the  Distinction 
between  Duty  and  Profit.— Diatlnctlou  of  Moral  Acts  Into  "Material"  and  "For- 
nud." — No  Ground  for  believing  that  Formal  Morality  exists  In  Brutes. — Evidence 
that  it  does  exist  In  Savages. — Facility  with  which  Savages  may  be  misunder- 
stood.— Objections  as  to  Diversity  of  Customs. — Mr.  Hutton's  Review  of  Mr.  Her- 
bert Spencer. — Anticipatory  Character  of  Morals. — Sir  John  Lubbocli's  Explana- 
tion.— Summary  and  Conclusion  .  .  .  .  .  .p.  202 


CHAPTER  X. 

PANOENEBIS. 

A  Provisional  Hypothesis  supplementing  "  Notural  Selection." — Statement  of  the  Hy- 
pothesis.— Difliculty  as  to  Multitude  of  Qemmules. — As  to  Certain  Modes  of  lie- 
production. — As  to  Formations  without  the  Kcquisite  Qemmules. — Mr.  Lewes  and 
Prof.  Delpino. — Difficulty  as  to  Developmental  Force  of  Gemmules. — As  to  their 
Spontaneous  Rssion. — Pangenesis  and  Vitalism. — Paradoxical  Keahty. — Pangene- 
sis scarcely  6ui>erior  to  Anterior  Hypothesis. — Bufi'on. — Owen. — Herbert  Spen- 
cer.— "  Qemmules  "  as  Mysterious  as  "  Physiological  Units."— Conclusion    .    p.  223 


CONTENTS.  9 


CHAPTER  XI. 

8PKOIFIOOBNKSI8. 

Review  of  the  Statements  and  Arguments  of  Preceding  Chapters. — Cumulative  Argu- 
ment against  Prodominant  Action  of  "Natural  Selection." — Whether  any  Thing 
positive  as  well  as  negative  can  be  enunciated. — Constancy  of  Ijiws  of  Nature  does 
not  necessarily  imply  Constancy  of  Specific  Evolution. — Possible  E.xceptional  Sta- 
bility of  Existing  Epoch. — Probability  that  an  Internal  Cause  of  Change  exists.— 
Innate  Powers  somewhere  must  be  accepted. — Symbolism  of  Molecular  Action 
under  Vibrating  Impulses. — Prof.  Owen's  Statement. — Statement  of  the  Author's 
View. — It  avoids  the  Difficulties  which  oppose  "  Natural  Selection." — It  harmon- 
izes Apparently  Conflicting  Conceptions. — Summary  and  Conclusion  .    p.  235 


CHAPTER  XII. 

THEOLOOT   AND   EVOLUTION. 

Prejudiced  Opinions  on  the  Subject. — "  Creation  "  sometimes  denied  from  Prejudice. — 
The  Unknowable. — Mr.  Herbert  Spencer's  Objections  to  Theism;  to  Creation. — 
Meanings  of  Term  "Creation." — Confusion  from  not  distinguishing  between  "Pri- 
mary" and  "  Derivative  "  Creation. — Mr.  Darwin's  Objections. — Bearing  of  Chris- 
tianity on  the  Theory  of  Evolution. — Supposed  Opposition,  the  Result  of  a  Mlscou- 
copilon. — Theological  Authority  not  opposed  to  Evolution. — St  Augustine. — St. 
Tliomas  Aquinas. — Certain  Consequences  of  Want  of  Flexibility  of  Mind. — Reason 
and  Imagination. — The  First  Cause  and  Demonstration. — Parallel  between  Chris- 
tianity and  Natural  Theology.— What  Evolution  of  Species  is.— Prof.  Agassiz.— In- 
nate Powers  must  be  recognized. — Bearing  of  Evolution  on  Religious  Belief. — Prof. 
Huxley.— Prof.  Owen.— Mr.  Wallace.— Mr.  Darwin. — A  priori  Conception  of  Di- 
vine Action. — Origin  of  Man. — Absolute  Creation  and  Dogma. — Mr.  Wallace's  View. 
— A  Supernatural  Origin  for  Man's  Body  not  necessary.- Two  Orders  of  Being  In 
Man.— Two  Modes  of  Origin.— Harmony  of  the  Physical,  Hypcrphysical,  and  Super- 
natural—Reconciliation of  Science  and  Religion  as  regards  Evolution.— Conclu- 
sion .....••••••    P-  259 


INDEX  .  •  . P-  808 


LIST  OF  ILLUSTEATIONS. 


PAOB 

Leaf  Butterfly  \n  flight  and  rei)ose  {from  Mr.  A.  Wallace's  '■'■  Malays s  Archi- 
pelago''^)    ..........  4-3 

Walking-Loftf  Insect  ........  47 

ricuronpctidip,  with  tho  pocnllnrly  placed  eyo  In  dlflferent  poBltlons  {from  Dr. 

Traqualr''8  paper  ih  TAnn.  Soc.  ?>•</?»*.,  18(55)     .  .  .  .49,  180 

'^\onih  otV^ht^Q  {from  Prof.  OicerCK'' Odontography "")  ...  63 

Four  plates  of  Baleen  seen  obliquely  from  within  {from  Prof.  OwerCa  "  Odon- 
tography'") .........  54 

Puponp        ..........         64,  189 

Echinus  or  Sea  Urchin  .  .  •  .  .  .  .  .   56,  191 

rcdlcellarlro  of  Echinus  T«ry  much  enlarged       .....  69 

Kattlesnake       ........*.  63 

CobrA  {from  Sir  Andrew  Stnith's  *' Soiit/um  Af/nca"")       .  .  .  63 

"Wlngbones  of  Pterodactyl,    Bat,   and  Bird  {from  Mr.  Andreio  Murray^a 

^^  Geographical  Distribution  of  Mammals")       .  .  .  .77,144,171 

Skeleton  of  Flylnp-Drapon      .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .   78,  172 

Centipede  {from  a  specimen  in  th*  Mmeum  of  th«  Royal  College  of  Sur- 

geon.9)        .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  •   79,  173 

Toeth  of  Urotrichus  and  Peramelcs  •,....  83 

The  Archooptcryx  {from  Prof.  Oicen's  "  Anatomy  of  Veriebrata'")    .  .   80,146 

Cuttle-Flsh  '. &9,  155 

Skeleton  of  Ichthyosaurus 92,  121,  146,  191 

Cytheridea.Torosa  {from  Messrs.  Brady  and  Iiobertson''s  paper  in  Ann.  and 

Mag.ofNat.rnsf.,-i810) 93 

A  Poly7x>on,  with  Binl's-head  processes     ......  94 

Bird's-head  processes  greatly  enlarged  ......  95 

Antcchinus  MInutlssimus  and  Mus  Delicatuhis  {from  3fr.  Andrew  Murray's 

'■'■  Oeographical  Distribution  of  Mammals")  ....  96 


12  LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS. 


TAO* 


Outlines  of  WlngB  of  Butterflies  of  Celebes  compared  with  those  of  ollled  spe- 

clea  elsewhere        .........  100 

Great  Shielded  Grasshopper          .......  103 

The  SLx-Bhaftod  Bird  of  Paradise 104 

The  LoDg-tallod  Bh^lofraradlso               ......  105 

The  Bed  Bhrd  of  Paradise        .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .106 

Homed  Flics           .........  107 

The  Magnificent  Bh^  of  Paradise 107 

{The  above  seven  Ji{;ure4  are  from  Mr.  A.  ]yiiUac6''8 '^^  Malay  Archi- 

peiago") 
Much  enlarged  horizontal  Section  of  the  Tooth  of  a  Labyrinthodon  (from  Prof. 

Owen'a  "  Odontography  ").......  118 

Hand  of  tho  Potto  {from  life) 119 

Skeleton  of  Plesiosaurufl 120,147,192 

Tha  kyQ-\y6  (^from  Trans,  of  Zool.  Soc.)        .....  122 

Dentition  of  Sabre-toothed  Tiger  (/rom  Pro/'.  Owen'a '^  Odontograjthy  ^'')       .  125 

Trlloblto 149,  185 

Inner  side  of  Tx>wer  Jaw  of  Pleurodont  Lizard  (from  Prof.  Owen'a  "  Odontog- 
raphy'''')          .........  163 

Solenodon  {from  Berlin  TYana.)     .......  163 

Tarsal  Bones  of  Qalago  and  Cheht)galeufl  {from  Proc.  Zool.  Sac.)     .           .  178 

SquUla 174 

Parts  of  the  Skeleton  of  the  Lobster        ......  176 

Spine  of  Galago  Allenli  (/ro?»  Proo.  2(wZ. /&o.)      .....  176 

Vertebra  of  AxolotI  {from  Proo.  Zool.  Soo.)      ......  179 

Annelid  undergoing  spontaneous  fission        .  .  .  .  .  183,  226 

Aard-Yark.  {Orycteropm  capeneia)        .           .           .            •           .           .  188 

Pangolin  {Mauls)         .........  189 

Skeleton  of  Manus  and  Pes  of  a  Tailed  Batrachlan  {from  Prof  Oegenbaur'a 

"  Taraua  and  Carpus  ").......  192 

Flexor  Muscles  of  Hand  of  Nycticetus  (/rOTH  Proc.  Zooi./Sbc.)    .      ^     .           .  194 

The  Fibres  of  CorU 296 


TEE  GENESIS  OF  SPECIES. 


CHAPTER  I. 

INTRODUCTORY. 

The  ProMom  of  tlio  Ocnpsls  of  Ppoclos  stntcd. — Nnturo  of  its  Prohahle  Rolntlon. — Tra- 
portnnce  of  the  Question. — Position  hero  defended. — Statement  of  the  Darwinian 
Tnr.onT. — Its  Applicahility  to  Details  of  Oeogrnphicnl  Distribution;  to  Rudimentary 
Structures;  to  Iloitiolopy  ;  to  Mimicry,  etc. — Consequent  Utility  of  the  Thcorj'.— 
Its  Wide  Acceptance. — Ileasons  for  this,  other  than,  and  In  Addition  to,  its  Scicnttflo 
Value. — Its  Simplicity. — Its  Bearing  on  Religious  Questions. — Odium  Theologicum 
and  OcJiuin  Antitheologicum. — The  Antagonism  supposed  by  many  to  exist  be- 
tween It  and  Tlieology  neither  necessary  nor  universal. — Christian  Authorities  in 
flivor  of  Kvolutlon. — iMr.  Darwin's  "Animals  and  Plimts  under  Domostication." — 
Dlfllcultics  of  the  Darwinian  Theory  enumerated. 

The  great  problem  which  has  so  long  exercised  the 
minds  of  naturalists,  namely,  that  concerning  the  origin 
of  different  kinds  of  animals  and  plants,  seems  at  last  to 
be  fairly  on  the  road  to  receive — perhaps  at  no  very  dis- 
tant future — as  satisfactory  a  solution  as  it  can  well  have. 

But  the  problem  presents  peculiar  difficulties.  The 
birth  of  a  "  species "  has  often  been  compared  with  that  of 
an  "  individual."  The  origin,  however,  of  even  an  individ- 
ual animal  or  plant  (that  which  determines  an  embryo  to 
evolve  itself — as,  e.  g.,  a  spider  rather  than  a  beetle,  a  rose- 
plant  rather  than  a  pear)  is  shrouded  in  obscurity.  A  fortiori 
must  this  be  the  case  with  the  origin  of  a  "  species." 

Moreover,  the  analogy  between  a  "species"  and  an 


14  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

"individual"  is  a  very  incomplete  one.  The  word  "indi- 
vidual" denotes  a  concrete  whole  with  a  real,  separate,  and 
distinct  existence.  The  word  "  species,"  on  the  other  hand, 
denotes  a  peculiar  congeries  of  characters,  innate  powers 
and  qualities,  and  a  certain  nature  realized  indeed  in  indi- 
viduals, but  having  no  separate  existence,  except  ideally  as 
a  thought  in  some  mind. 

Thus  the  birth  of  a  "  species "  can  only  be  compared 
metaphorically,  and  very  imperfectly,  with  that  of  an  "  indi- 
vidual." 

Individuals,  as  individuals^  actually  and  din^clly  produce 
and  bring  forth  other  individuals  ;  but  no  "  congeries  of 
characters,"  no  "  common  nature "  as  such^  can  directly 
bring  forth  another  "  common  nature,"  because,  per  se,  it 
lias  no  existence  (other  than  ideal)  apart  from  the  individ- 
uals in  which  it  is  manifested. 

The  problem  then  is,  "  By  what  combination  of  natural 
laws  does  a  new  *  common  nature '  appear  upon  the  scene 
of  realized  existence?"  i.  e.,  how  is  an  individual  embody- 
ing such  new  characters  produced  ? 

For  the  approximation  we  have  of  late  made  toward  the 
solution  of  this  problem,  we  are  mainly  indebted  to  the  in- 
valuable labors  and  active  brains  of  Charles  Darwin  and 
Alfred  Wallace. 

Nevertheless,  important  as  have  been  the  impulse  and 
direction  given  by  those  writers  to  both  our  observations 
and  speculations,  the  solution  will  not  (if  the  views  here 
advocated  are  correct)  ultimatel}'^  present  that  aspect  and 
character  with  which  it  has  issued  from  the  hands  of  those 
writers. 

Neither,  most  certainly,  will  that  solution  agree  in  ap- 
pearance or  substance  with  the  more  or  less  crude  concep- 
tions which  have  been  put  forth  by  most  of  the  opponents 
of  Messrs.  Darwin  and  Wallace. 

Rather,  judging  from  the  more  recent  manifestations  of 


I.]  INTRODUCTORY.  15 

Ibouglit  on  opposite  sides,  we  may  expect  the  development 
of  some  tertium  quid — the  resultant  of  forces  coming  from 
different  quarters,  and  not  coinciding  in  direction  with  any 
one  of  them. 

As  error  is  almost  always  partial  truth,  and  so  consists 
in  the  exaggeration  or  distortion  of  one  verity  by  the  sui> 
pression  of  another  which  qualifies  and  modifies  the  former, 
we  may  hope,  by  the  synthesis  of  the  truths  contended 
for  by  various  advocates,  to  arrive  at  the  one  conciliating 
reality. 

Signs  of  this  conciliation  are  not  wanting:  opposite 
scientific  views,  opposite  philosophical  conceptions,  and 
opposite  religious  beliefs,  are  rapidly  tending,  by  their  vig- 
orous conflict,  to  evolve  such  a  systematic  and  comprehen- 
sive view  of  the  genesis  of  species  as  will  completely 
harmonize  with  the  teachings  of  science,  philosophy,  and 
religion. 

K'  To  endeavor  to  add  one  stone  to  this  temple  of  concord, 
to  try  and  remove  a  few  of  the  misconceptions  and  mutual 
misunderstandings  which  oppose  harmonious  action,  are  the 
aim  and  endeavor  of  the  present  work.  This  aim  it  is  hoped 
to  attain,  not  by  shirking  difficulties,  but  analyzing  them, 
and  by  endeavoring  to  dig  down  to  the  common  root  which 
supports  and  unites  diverging  stems  of  truth. 

It  cannot  but  be  a  gain  when  the  laborers  in  the  three 
fields  above  mentioned,  namely,  science,  philosophy,  and 
religion,  shall  fully  recognize  this  harmony.  Then  the 
energy  too  often  spent  in  futile  controversy,  or  withheld 
through  prejudice,  may  be  profitably  and  reciprocally  exer- 
cised for  the  mutual  benefit  of  all. 

Remarkable  is  the  rapidity  with  which  an  interest  in 
the  question  of  specific  origination  has  spread.  But  a  few 
years  ago  it  scarcely  occupied  the  minds  of  any  but  natural- 
ists. Then  the  crude  theory  put  forth  by  Lamarck,  and  by 
his  English  interpreter,  the  author  of  the  "  Vestiges  of  Cre- 


15  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

ation,"  had  rather  discredited  than  helped  on  a  belief  in 
organic  evolution — a  belief,  that  is,  in  new  kinds  being  pro- 
duced from  older  ones  by  the  ordinary  and  constant  opera- 
tion of  natural  laws.  Now,  however,  this  belief  is  widely 
diffused.  Indeed,  there  are  few  drawing-rooms  where  it  is 
not  the  subject  of  occasional  discussion,  and  artisans  and 
school-boys  have  their  views  as  to  the  pernianencc  of  or- 
ganic forms.  Moreover,  the  reception  of  this  doctrine  tends 
actually,  though  by  no  means  necessarily,  to  be  accompa- 
nied by  certain  beliefs  with  regard  to  quite  distinct  and  very 
momentous  subject-matter.  So  that  the  question  of  the 
*'  Genesis  of  Species  "  is  not  only  one  of  great  interest,  but 
also  of  much  importance. 

•  But  though  the  calm  and  thorough  consideration  of  this 
matter  is  at  the  present  moment  exceedingly  desirable,  yet 
the  actual  importance  of  the  question  itself  as  to  its  conse- 
quences in  the  domain  of  theology  has  been  strangely  exag- 
gerated by  many,  both  of  its  opponents  and  supporters. 
This  is  especially  the  case  with  that  form  of  the  evolution 
theory  which  is  associated  with  the  name  of  Mr.  Darwin  ; 
and  yet  neither  the  refutation  nor  the  demonstration  of 
that  doctrine  would  be  necessarily  accompanied  by  the 
results  whicli  are  hoped  for  by  one  party  and  dreaded  by 
another. 

The  general  theory  of  evolution  has  indeed  for  some 
time  past  steadily  gained  ground,  and  it  may  be  safely  pre- 
dicted that  the  number  of  facts  which  can  be  brought  for- 
ward in  its  support  will,  in  a  few  years,  be  vastly  augment- 
ed. But  the  prevalence  of  this  theory  need  alarm  no  one, 
for  it  is,  without  any  doubt,  perfectly  consistent  with  strict- 
est and  most  orthodox  Christian  theology.  Moreover,  it  is 
not  altogether  without  obscurities,  and  cannot  yet  be  con- 
sidered as  fully  demonstrated. 

The  special  Darwinian  hypothesis,  however,  is  beset 
with  certain  scientific  difficulties,  which  must  by  no  means 


I.J  INTRODUCTORY.  17 

be  ignored,  and  some  of  which,  I  venture  to  think,  are  ab- 
solutely insuperable.  What  Darwinism  or  "  Natural  Selec- 
tion "  is,  will  be  shortly  exjilained  ;  but,  before  doing  so,  I 
think  it  well  to  slate  the  object  of  this  book,  and  the  view 
taken  up  and  defended  in  it.  It  is  its  object  to  maintain 
the  position  that  "  Natural  Selection  "  acts,  and  indeed 
must  act,  but  that  still,  in  order  that  we  may  be  able  to 
account  for  the  production  of  known  kinds  of  animals  and 
plants,  it  requires  to  be  supplemented  by  the  action  of  some 
other  natural  law  or  laws  as  yet  undiscovered.*  Also,  that 
the  consequences  which  have  been  drawn  from  Evolution, 
whether  exclusively  Darwinian  or  not,  to  the  prejudice  of 
religion,  by  no  means  follow  from  it,  and  are  in  fact  illegiti- 
mate. 

The  Darwinian  theory  of  "  Natural  Selection  "  may  be 
shortly  stated  thus  : ' 

Every  kind  of  animal  and  plant  tends  to  increase  in 
numbers  in  a  geometrical  progression. 

Every  kind  of  animal  and  plant  transmits  a  general  like- 
ness, with  individual  diflferences,  to  its  offspring. 

Every  individual  may  present  minute  variations  of  any 
kind  and  in  any  direction. 

Past  time  has  been  practically  infinite. 

Every  individual  has  to  endure  a  very  severe  struggle 
for  existence,  owing  to  the  tendency  to  geometrical  increase 
of  a,ll  kinds  of  animals  and  plants,  while  the  total  animal 
and  vegetable  population  (man  and  his  agency  excepted) 
remains  almost  stationary. 

*  In  the  last  edition  of  the  "Origin  of  Species"  (1869)  Mr.  Darwin 
himself  admits  that  "Natural  Selection"  has  not  been  the  exclusive 
means  of  modification,  though  he  still  contends  it  has  been  the  most  im- 
portant one. 

'  Sec  Mr.  Wallace's  recent  work,  entitled  "Contributions  to  the  The- 
oty  of  Natural  Selection,"  where,  at  p.  302,  it  is  very  well  and  shortly 
stated. 


18  THE  GENESIS   OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

Tims,  every  variation  of  a  kind  tendinf^  to  save  the  life 
of  the  individual  possessing  it,  or  to  enal)le  it  more  surely 
to  propagate  its  kind,  will  in  the  long-run  be  preserved, 
and  will  transmit  its  favorable  peculiarity  to  some  of  its 
oll'spring,  which  peculiarity  will  thus  become  intensified  till 
it  reaches  the  maximum  degree  of  utility.  On  the  other 
hand,  individuals  presenting  unfavorable  peculiarities  will 
be  ruthlessly  destroyed.  The  action  of  this  law  of  "Natural 
Selection"  may  thus  be  well  represented  by  the  convenient 
expression,  "  survival  of  the  fittest."  * 

Now,  this  conception  of  Mr.  Darwin's  is,  perhaps,  the 
most  interesting  theory,  in  relation  to  natural  science, 
which  has  been  pronnilgated  during  the  present  century. 
Uemarkable,  indeed,  is  the  way  in  which  it  groups  together 
such  a  vast  and  varied  series  of  biological  *  facts,  and  even 
paradoxes,  which  it  appears  more  or  less  clearly  to  explain, 
as  the  following  instances  will  show.  By  this  theory  of 
"Natural  Selection,"  light  is  thrown  on  the  more  singular 
facts  relating  to  the  geographical  distribution  of  animals 
and  plants ;  for  example,  on  the  resemblance  between  the 
l)ast  and  present  inhabitants  of  different  parts  of  the  earth's 
surface.  Thus  in  Australia  remains  have  been  found  of 
creatures  closely  alHed  to  kangaroos  and  other  kinds  of 
pouched  beasts,  which  in  the  present  day  exist  nowhere  but 
in  the  Australian  region.  Similarly  in  South  America,  and 
nowhere  else,  are  found  sloths  and  armadillos,  and  in  that 
same  part  of  the  world  have  been  discovered  bones  of  ani- 
mals different  indeed  from  existing  sloths  and  armadillos, 
but  yet  much  more  nearly  related  to  them  than  to  any  other 
kinds  whatever.  Such  coincidences  between  the  existing 
and  antecedent  geographical  distribution  of  forms  are  nu- 

'  "  Natural  Selection  "  is  happily  so  termed  by  Mr.  Uerbert  Spencer 
in  his  "  Principles  of  Biology." 

*  Biology  is  the  science  of  life.  It  contains  zoology,  or  the  science 
of  animals,  and  botany,  or  that  of  plants. 


L]  INTRODUCTORY,  19 

meroiis.  Again,  "  Natural  Selection "  serves  to  explain 
the  circumstance  that  often  in  adjacent  islands  we  find  ani- 
mals closely  resembling,  and  appearing  to  represent,  each 
other ;  while,  if  certain  of  these  islands  show  signs  (by 
depth  of  surrounding  sea  or  what  not)  of  more  ancient 
separation,  the  animals  inhabiting  them  exhibit  a  corre- 
sponding divergence/  The  explanation  consists  in  rejv 
rcsenting  the  forms  inhabiting  the  islands  as  being  the 
modified  descendants  of  a  common  stock,  the  modification 
being  greatest  where  the  separation  has  been  the  most  pro- 
longed. 

"  Rudimentary  structures  "  also  receive  .nn  explanation 
by  meaiis  of  tliis  theory.  These  structures  are  parts  which 
are  apparently  functionless  and  useless  where  they  occur, 
but  which  represent  similar  parts  of  large  size  and  func- 
tional importance  in  other  animals.  Examples  of  such  "  ru- 
dimentary structures"  are  the  fojtal  teeth  of  whales,  and 
of  tlie  front  part  of  the  jaw  of  ruminating  quadrupeds. 
These  foetal  structures  are  minute  in  size,  and  never  cut  the 
gum,  but  are  reabsorbed  without  ever  coming  into  use, 
while  no  other  teeth  succeed  them  or  represent  them  in  the 
adult  condition  of  those  animals.  The  mammary  glands  of 
all  male  beasts  constitute  another  example,  as  also  does  the 
wing  of  the  apteryx — a  New  Zealand  bird  utterly  incapable 
of  flight,  and  with  the  wing  in  a  quite  rudimentary  condi- 
tion (whence  the  name  of  the  animal).  Yet  this  rudiment- 
ary wing  contains  bones  wdiich  are  miniature  representa- 
tives of  the  ordinary  wing-bones  of  birds  of  flight.  Now, 
the  presence  of  these  useless  bones  and  teeth  is  explained 
if  they  may  be  considered  as  actually  being  the  inherited 
diminished  representatives  of  parts  of  large  size  and  func- 
tional importance  in  the  remote  ancestors  of  these  various 
animals. 

'  For  very  interesting  examples,  see  Mr.  "Wallace's  "  Malay  Archi- 
pelago." 


20  THE   GENESIS   OF  SPECIES.  [Chap 

Again,  the  singular  facts  of  "  liomology  "  are  capable  of 
a  similar  explanation.  "Homology"  is  the  name  applied 
to  the  investigation  of  those  profound  resemblances  which 
have  so  often  been  found  to  underlie  superficial  differences 
between  animals  of  very  different  form  and  habit.  Thus 
man,  the  horse,  the  whale,  and  the  bat,  all  have  the  pec- 
toral limb,  whether  it  be  the  arm,  or  fore-leg,  or  paddle,  or 
wing,  formed  on  essentially  the  same  type,  though  the  num- 
ber and  proportion  of  parts  may  more  or  less  differ.  Again, 
the  butterily  and  the  shrimp,  different  as  they  are  in  ap- 
pearance and  mode  of  life,  are  yet  constructed  on  the  same 
common  plan,  of  which  they  constitute  diverging  manifesta- 
•tions.  No  a  priori  reason  is  conceivable  why  such  simi- 
larities should  be  necessary,  but  they  are  readily  explicable 
on  the  assumption  of  a  genetic  relationship  and  affinity  be- 
tween the  animals  in  question,  assuming,  that  is,  that  they 
are  the  modified  descendants  of  some  ancient  form— 7their 
common  ancestor. 

That  remarkable  series  of  changes  which  animals  under- 
go before  they  attain  their  adult  condition,  which  is  called 
their  process  of  development,  and  during  which  they  more 
or  less  closely  resemble  other  animals  during  the  early 
stages  of  the  same  process,  has  also  great  light  thrown  on 
it  from  the  same  source.  The  question  as  to  the  singularly 
complex  resemblances  borne  by  every  adult  animal  and 
plant  to  a  certain  number  of  other  animals  and  plants — re- 
semblances by  means  of  which  the  adopted  zoological  and 
botanical  systems  of  classification  have  been  possible — finds 
its  solution  in  a  similar  manner,  classification  becoming  the 
expression  of  a  genealogical  relationship.  Finally,  by  this 
theory — and  as  yet  by  this  alone — can  any  explanation  be 
given  of  that  extraordinary  phenomenon  which  is  meta- 
phorically termed  mlniicry.  Mimicry  is  a  close  and  striking, 
yet  superficial  resemblance  borne  by  some  animal  or  plant 
to  some  other,  perhaps  very  diflerent,  animal  or  plant.     The 


I.]  INTRODUCTORY.  21 

• 

"walking  leaf  (an  insect  belonging  to  the  grasshopper 
and  cricket  order)  is  a  well-known  and  conspicuous  instance 
of  the    assumption  by  an  animal  of  the    appearance  of  a 
vegetable  structure  (see  illustration  on  p.  47) ;  and  the  bee, 
fly,  and  spider  orchids,  are  familiar  examples  of  a  converse 
resemblance.     Birds,    butterflies,   reptiles,    and   even   fish, 
seem  to  bear  in  certain  instances  a  similarly  striking  re- 
semblance to  other  birds,  butterflies,  reptiles,  and  fish,  of 
altogether  distinct  kinds.     The  explanation  of  this  matter 
which  "Natural  Selection  "  oflers,  as  to  animals, is  that  cer- 
tain varieties  of  one  kind  have  found  exemption  from  per- 
secution in  consequence  of  an  accidental  resemblance  which 
such  varieties  have  exhibited  to  animals  of  another  kind,  or 
to  plants  ;  and  that  they  were  thus  preserved,  and  the  de- 
gree of  resemblance  was  continually  augmented  in  their 
descendants.     As  to  plants,  the  explanation  ofi'ered  by  this 
theory  might,  perhaps,  be,  that  varieties  of  plants,  which 
jDresented  a  certain  superficial  resemblance  in  their  flowers 
to   insects,  have  thereby  been  helped  to   propagate  their 
kind,  the  visit  of  certain  insects  being  useful  or  indispen- 
sable to  the  fertilization  of  many  flowers. 
*•"  We  have  thus  a  whole  series  of  important  facts  which 
"  Natural   Selection  "  helps  us  to  understand  and  coordi- 
nate.    And  not  only  are  all  these  diverse  facts  strung  to- 
gether, as  it  were,  by  the  theory  in  question ;   not  only 
does  it  explain  the  development  of  the  complex  instincts 
of  the  beaver,  the  cuckoo,  the  bee,  and  the  ant,  as  also  the 
dazzling  brilliancy  of  the  humming-bird,  the  glowing  tail 
and  neck  of  the  peacack,  and  the  melody  of  the  nightin- 
gale ;    the  perfume  of   the  rose  and  the  violet,  the    bril- 
liancy of  the  tulip  and  the  sweetness  of  the  nectar  of  flow- 
ers ;  not  only  does  it  help  us  to  understand  all  these,  but 
serves  as  a  basis  of  future  research  and  of  inference  from 
the  knoAvn  to  the  unknown,  and  it  guides  the  investigator 
to  the  discovery  of  new  facts  which,  when  ascertained,  it 


22  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Cuap. 

seems  also  able  to  coordinate.'  Nay,  "  Natural  Selection  " 
seems  capable  of  application  not  only  to  the  building  up 
of  the  smallest  and  most  insignificant  organisms,  but  even 
of  extension  beyond  the  biological  domain  altogether,  so 
as  possibly  to  have  relation  to  the  stable  equilibrium  of 
the  solar  system  itself,  and  even  of  the  whole  sidereal  uni- 
verse. Thus,  whether  this  theory  be  true  or  false,  all  lov- 
ers of  natural  science  should  acknowledge  a  deep  debt  of 
gratitude  to  Messrs.  Darwin  and  Walhice,  on  account  of  itSy^ 
practical  utility.  15ut  the  utility  of  a  theory  by  no  means 
implies  its  truth.  What  do  we  not  owe,  for  example,  to 
the  labors  of  the  Alcliemists  ?  The  emission  theory  of 
light,  again,  has  been  pregnant  with  valuable  results,  as  still 
is  the  Atomic  theory,  and  others  which  will  readily  suggest 
themselves. 

With  regard  to  Mr.  Darwin  (with  whose  name,  on  ac- 
count of  the  noble  self-abnegation  of  Mr.  Wallace,  the 
theory  is  in  general  exclusively  associated),  his  friends  may 
heartily  congratulate  him  on  the  fact  that  he  is  one  of  the 
few  exceptions  to  the  rule  respecting  the  non-appreciation 
of  a  prophet  in  his  own  country.  It  would  be  diihcult  to 
name  another  living  laborer  in  the  field  of  physical  science 
who  has  excited  an  interest  so  wide-spread,  and  given  rise 
to  so  much  praise,  gathering* round  him,  as  he  has  done,  a 
chorus  of  more  or  less  completely  acquiescing  disciples, 
themselves  masters  in  science,  and  each  the  representative 
of  a  crowd  of  enthusiastic  followers. 

Such  is  the  Darwinian  theory  of  "  Natural  Selection," 
such  are  the  more  remarkable  facts  which  it  is  potent  to 

•  See  Miiller's  work,  "  Fiir  Darwin,"  lately  translated  into  English  by 
Mr.  Dallas,  Mr.  Wallace  also  predicts  the  discovery,  in  ^Madagascar,  of 
a  hawk-moth  with  an  enormously-long  proboscis,  and  he  does  this  on 
account  of  the  discovery  there  of  an  orchid  with  a  nectary  from  ten  lo 
fourteen  inches  in  length.  See  Quarterly  Juurnal  of  JScicnce,  October, 
18G7,  and  "Natural  Selection,"  p.  275. 


I.]  INTRODUCTORY.  23 

explain,  and  such  is  the  reception  it  has  met  with  in  the 
world.  A  few  words  now  as  to  the  reasons  for  the  very 
wide-spread  interest  it  has  awakened,  and  the  keenness 
with  which  the  theory  has  been  both  advocated  and  com- 
bated. 

The  important  bearing  it  has  on  such  an  extensive 
raufre  of  scientific  facts,  its  utility,  and  the  vast  knowledge 
and  great  ingenuity  of  its  promulgator,  are  enough  to  ac- 
count for  the  heartiness  of  its  reception  by  those  learned 
in  natural  history.  But  quite  other  causes  have  concurred 
to  produce  the  general  and  higher  degree  of  interest  felt 
in  the  iheory  besides  the  readiness  with  which  it  harmonizes 
with  biological  facts.  These  latter  could  only  be  appreci- 
ated by  physiologists,  zoologists,  and  botanists;  whereas 
the  Darwinian  theory,  so  novel  and  so  startling,  lias  found 
a  cloud  of  advocates  and  opponents  beyond  and  outside 
the  world  of  physical  science. 

In  the  first  place,  it  was  inevitable  that  a  great  crowd>/ 
of  half-educated  men  and  shallow  thinkers  should  accept 
with  eagerness  the  theory  of  "  Natural  Selection,"  or  rath- 
er what  they  think  to  be  such  (for  few  things  are  more  re- 
markable than  the  way  in  which  it  has  been  misunder- 
stood), on  account  of  a  certain  characteristic  it  has  in  com- 
mon with  other  theories ;  which  should  not  be  mentioned 
in  the  same  breath  with  it,  except,  as  now,  with  the  accom- 
paniment of  protest  and  apology.  We  refer  to  its  remark- 
able simplicity,  and  the  ready  way  in  which  phenomena 
the  most  complex  appear  explicable  by  a  cause  for  the 
comprehension  of  which  laborious  and  persevering  efforts 
are  not  required,  but  which  may  be  represented  by  the  sim- 
ple phrase  "  survival  of  the  fittest."  With  nothing  more 
than  this,  can,  on  the  Darwinian  theory,  all  the  most  intri- 
cate facts  of  distribution  and  affinity,  form  and  color,  be 
accounted  for ;  as  well  the  most  complex  instincts  and  the 
most  admirable  adjustments,  such  as  those  of  the  human 


24  THE  Genesis  of  species.  [Chap 

eye  and  ear.  It  is  in  great  measure,  then,  owing  to  this 
supposed  simplicity,  and  to  a  belief  in  its  being  yet  easier 
and  more  simple  than  it  is,  that  Darwinism,  however  imper- 
fectly understood,  has  become  a  subject  for  general  conver- 
sation, and  has  been  able  thus  widely  to  increase  a  certain 
knowledge  of  biological  matters;  and  this  excitation  of 
interest,  in  quarters  where  otherwise  it  would  have  been  en- 
tirely wanting,  is  an  additional  motive  for  gratitude  on  the 
part  of  naturalists  to  the  authors  of  the  new  theory.  At 
the  same  time  it  must  be  admitted  that  a  similar  "  simpli- 
city " — the  apparently  easy  explanation  of  comi)lex  phe- 
nomena— also  constitutes  the  charm  of  such  matters  as  hy- 
dropathy and  phrenology,  in  the  eyes  of  the  unlearned  or  • 
half-educated  public.  It  is  indeed  the  charm  of  all  those 
seeming  "  short-cuts  "  to  knowledge,  by  which  the  labor  of 
mastering  scientific  details  is  spared  to  those  who  yet  be- 
lieve that  without  such  labor  they  can  attain  all  the  most 
valuable  results  of  scientific  research.  It  is  not,  of  course, 
for  a  moment  meant  to  imply  that  its  "  simplicity  "  tells  at 
all  against  "Natural  Selection,"  but  only  that  the  actual  or 
supposed  possession  of  that  quality  is  a  strong  reason  for  / 
the  wide  and  somewhat  hasty  acceptance  of  the  theory, 
whether  it  be  true  or  not. 

In  the  second  place,  it  was  inevitable  that  a  theory  ap- 
pearing to  have  very  grave  relations  with  questions  of  the 
last  importance  and  interest  to  man,  that  is,  with  ques- 
tions of  religious  belief,  should  call  up  an  army  of  assail- 
ants and  defenders.  Nor  have  the  supporters  of  the 
theory  much  reason,  in  many  cases,  to  blame  the  more  or 
less  unskilful  and  hasty  attacks  of  adversaries,  seeing  that  y 
those  attacks  have  been  in  great  part  due  to  the  unskilful'' 
and  perverse  advocacy  of  the  cause  on  the  part  of  some  of 
its  adherents.  If  the  odium  theologicum  has  inspired 
some  of  its  opponents,  it  is  undeniable  that  the  odium  aii' 
titheologicum  has  possessed  not  a  few  of  its  supporters. 


I.]  INTRODUCTORY.  25 

It  is  (mo  (and  in  appreciating  some  of  Mr.  Darwin's  ex- 
pressions it  should  never  be  forgotten)  that  the  theory  has 
been  both  at  ifa  first  promulgation  and  since  vehemently 
attacked  and  denounced  as  unchristian,  nay,  as  necessarily 
atheistic;  but  it  is  not  less  true  that  it  has  been  made  use 
of  as  a  weapon  of  offence  by  irreligious  writers,  and  has 
been  again  and  again,  especially  in  Continental  Europe, 
thrown,  as  it  were,  in  the  face  of  believers,  with  sneers 
and  contumely.  When  we  recollect  the  "warmth  with 
wdiich  what  he  thought  was  Darwinism  was  advocated  by 
such  a  writer  as  Prof.  Vogt,  one  cause  of  his  zeal  was 
not  far  to  seek — a  zeal,  by-thc-way,  certainly  not  "  accord- 
ing to  knowledge ;  "  for  few  coiicej)tions  could  have  been 
more  confHcting  with  true  Darwinism  than  the  theory  he 
formerly  maintained,  but  has  since  abandoned,  viz.,  that  the 
men  of  the  Old  World  were  descended  from  African  and 
Asiatic  apes,  while,  similarly,  the  American  apes  were  the 
progenitors  of  the  human  beings  of  the  New  World.  The 
cause  of  this  palpable  error  in  a  too  eager  disciple  one 
might  hope  was  not  anxiety  to  snatch  up  all  or  any  arms 
available  against  Christianity,  were  it  not  for  the  tone  un- 
happily adopted  by  this  author.  But  it  is  unfortunately 
quite  impossible  to  mistake  his  meaning  and  intention,  for 
lie  is  a  writer  whose  offensiveness  is  gross,  while  it  is  some- 
times almost  surpassed  by  an  amazing  shallowness.  Of 
course,  as  might  fully  be  expected,  he  adopts  and  repro- 
duces the  absurdly  trivial  objections  to  absolute  morality 
drawn  from  differences  in  national  customs.'  And  he 
seems  to  have  as  little  conception  of  the  distinction  be- 
tween "  formally  "  moral  actions  and  those  which  are  only 
"  materially  "  moral,  as  of  that  between  the  verhutn  men- 
tale  and  the  verhum  oris.  As  an  example  of  his  onesided- 
ness,  it  may  be  remarked  that  he  compares  the  skulls  of  the 

'  "  Lectures  on  Man,"  translated  by  the  Anthropological  Society,  1861, 
p.  229. 

2 


26  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIKS.  [Chap. 

American  monkeys  {Cebiis  apella  and  C.  albifrons)  with 
the  intention  of  showing  that  man  is  of  several  distinct 
species,  because  skulls  of  dilferent  men  are  less  alike  than 
are  those  of  these  two  monkeys  ;  and  lie  does  this  regard- 
less of  how  the  skulls  of  domestic  animals  (with  which  it 
is  far  more  legitimate  to  compare  races  of  men  than  with 
wild  kinds),  e.g.,  of  different  dogs  or  pigeons,  tell  precisely 
in  tlie  opposite  direction.  Hegardlesa  also  of  tlie  fact  that 
perhaps  no  genus  of  monkeys  is  in  a  more  unsatisfactory 
state  as  to  the  determination  of  its  different  kinds  than  the 
genus  chosen  by  him  for  illustration.  This  is  so  much  the 
case  that  J.  A.  Wagner  (in  his  supj)lement  to  Schreber's 
great  work  on  Beasts)  at  first  included  all  the  kinds  in  a 
single  species, 

As  to  the  strength  of  his  prejudice  and  his  regrettable 
coarseness,  one  quotation  will  be  enough  to  display  both. 
Speaking  of  certain  early  Christian  missionaries,  he  says  ; " 
"  It  is  not  so  very  improbable  that  the  new  religion,  before 
which  the  flourishing  Roman  civilization  relapsed  into  a  state 
of  barbarism,  should  have  been  introduced  by  people  in  whose  / 
skulls  the  anatomist  finds  simious  characters  so  well  dev^el- 
oped,  and  in  which  the  i)hrenologist  finds  the  organ  of  ven- 
eration so  mucli  enlarged.  I  shall,  in  the  meanwhile,  call 
these  simious  narrow  skulls  of  Switzerland  '  Apostle  skulls,' 
as  I  imagine  that  in  life  they  must  have  resembled  the  type 
of  Peter  the  Apostle,  as  represented  in  Byzantine-Nazarene 
art." 

In  fiice  of  such  a  spirit,  can  it  be  wondered  at  that  dis- 
putants have  grown  warm  ?  Moreover,  in  estimating  the 
vehemence  of  the  opposition  which  has  been  offered,  it 
should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  views  defended  by  religious 
writers  are,  or  should  be,  all-important  in  their  eyes.  They 
could'not  be  expected  to  view  with  equanimity  the  destruc- 
tion in  many  minds  of  "  theology,  natural  and  revealed, 

8  "  Lectures  on  Mun,"  p.  378. 


I.J  INTRODUCTORY.  27 

psycliology,  and  inctapliysics;  "  nor  to  weign  \vi(li  calm  and 
frigid  impartiality  arguments  which  seemed  to  them  to  be 
fraught  with  results  of  the  highest  moment  to  mankind,  and 
therefore  imposing  on  their  consciences  strenuous  opposi- 
tion as  a  first  duty;  Cool,  judicial  impartiality  in  them  would 
have  been  a  sign  perhaps  of  intellectual  gifts,  but  also  of 
a  more  important  deficiency  of  generous  emotion. 

It  is  easy  to  complain  of  the  onesidedness  of  many  of 
those  who  oppose  Darwinism  in  the  interest  of  orthodoxy  ; 
but  not  at  all  less  patent  is  the  intolerance  and  narrow- 
mindedness  of  some  of  those  who  advocate  it,  avoAvedly  or 
covertly,  in  the  interest  of  heterodoxy.  This  hastiness  of 
rejection  or  acceptance,  determined  by  ulterior  consequences 
believed  to  attach  to  "  Natural  Selection,"  is  unfortunately 
in  part  to  be  accounted  for  by  some  expressions  and  a  cer- 
tain tone  to  be  found  in  Mr.  Darwin's  writings.  That  his 
expressions,  however,  are  not  always  to  be  construed  liter- 
ally is  manifest.  His  frequent  use  metaphorically  of  the 
expressions,  "  contrivance,"  for  example,  and  "  purpose," 
has  elicited,  from  the  Duke  of  Argyll  and  others,  criticisms 
which  fail  to  tell  against  their  opponent,  because  such  ex- 
pressions are,  in  Mr.  Darwin's  writings  merely  figurative — 
metaphors,  and  nothing  more. 

It  may  be  hoped,  then,  that  a  similar  looseness  of  ex- 
pression will  account  for  passages  of  a  directly  opposite 
tendency  to  that  of  his  theistic  metaphors. 

Moreover,  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  he  frequently 
uses  that  absolutely  theological  term,  "  the  Creator,"  and 
that  he  has  retained  in  all  the  editions  of  his  "  Origin  of 
Species"  an  expression  which  has  been  much  criticised. 
He  speaks  "  of  life,  with  its  several  powers,  having  been 
originally  breathed  by  the  Creator  into  a  few  forms,  or 
into  one.""  This  is  merely  mentioned  in  justice  to  Mr. 
Darwin,  and  by  no  means  because  it  is  a  position  which  this 

»  Sec  Cth  edit.,  1869,  p.  579. 


28  THE   GENESIS  OF   SPECIES.  [Chap. 

book  is  intended  to  support.  For,  from  Mr.  Darwin's  usual 
mode  of  speaking,  it  appears  that  by  such  divine  action  he 
means  a  supernatural  intervention,  whereas  it  is  here  con- 
tended that  throughout  the  whole  process  of  pliysical  evo- 
lution—the first  manifestation  of  life  included — supernatu- 
ral action  is  assuredly  not  to  be  looked  for. 

Again,  in  justice  to  Rfr.  Darwin,  it  may  be  observed 
that  he  is  addressing  tlie  general  public,  and  opposing  the 
ordinary  and  connnon  objections  of  popular  religionists,  who 
have  inveighed  against  "  Evolution  "  and  "  Natural  Selec- 
tion "  as  atheistic,  impious,  and  directly  conflicting  with  the 
dogma  of  creation. 

Still,  in  so  important  a  matter,  it  is  to  be  regretted  that 
he  did  not  take  the  trouble  to  distinguish  between  such 
merely  popular  views  and  those  which  repose  upon  some 
more  venerable  authority.  Mr.  John  Stuart  Mill  has  replied 
to  similar  critics,  and  shown  that  the  assertion  that  his 
philosophy  is  irreconcilable  with  theism  is  unfounded ;  and 
it  would  have  been  better  if  Mr.  Darwin  had  dealt  in  the 
same  manner  with  some  of  his  assailants,  and  shown  the 
futility  of  certain  of  their  objections  when  viewed  from  a 
more  elevated  njligious  stand-point.  Instead  of  so  doing,  he 
seems  to  adopt  the  narrowest  notions  of  his  opponents,  and, 
far  from  endeavoring  to  expand  them,  appears  to  wish  to 
indorse  them,  and  to  lend  to  them  the  weight  of  his  author- 
ity. It  is  thus  that  Mr.  Darwin  seems  to  admit  and  assume 
that  the  idea  of  "  creation  "  necessitates  a  belief  in  an  in- 
terference with,  or  dispensation  of,  natural  laws,  and  that 
"  creation  "  must  be  accompanied  by  arbitrary  and  unorderly 
phenomena.  None  but  the  crudest  conceptions  are  placed 
by  him  to  the  credit  of  supporters  of  the  dogma  of  creation, 
and  it  is  constantly  asserted  that  they,  to  be  consistent, 
must  ofler  "creative  fiats  "  as  explanations  of  physical  phe- 
nomena, and  be  guilty  of  numerous  other  such  absurdities. 
It  is  impossible,  therefore,  to  acquit  Mr.  Darwin  of  ut  least 


I.]  INTRODUCTOUY.  29 

a  certain  carelessness  in  this  matter;  and  the  result  is,  he 
has  the  appearance  of  opposing-  ideas  which  he  gives  no 
clear  evidence  of  having  ever  fully  appreciated.  He  is  far 
from  being  alone  in  this,  and  perhaps  merely  takes  up  and 
reiterates,  without  much  consideration,  assertions  j)reviously 
assumed  by  others.  Nothing  could  be  further  from  Mr. 
Darwin's  mind  than  any,  liowever  small,  intentional  misrep- 
resentation ;  and  it  is  therefore  the  more  unfortunate  that 
he  should  not  have  shown  any  appreciation  of  a  position  op- 
posed to  his  own  other  than  that  gross  and  crude  one  which 
he  coml)ats  so  superfluously — that  he  should  appear,  for  a 
moment,  to  be  one  of  those,  of  whom  there  are  far  too  many, 
who  first  misrepresent  tlieir  adversary's  view  and  then  elab- 
orately refute  it ;  who,  in  fact,  erect  a  doll  utterly  incapable 
of  self-defence,  and  then,  with  a  ilourish  of  trumpets  and 
many  vigorous  strokes,  overthrow  the  helpless  dummy  they 
had  previously  raised. 

This  is  what  many  do  who  more  or  less  distinctly  oppose 
theism  in  the  interests,  as  they  believe,  of  physical  science ; 
and  they  often  represent,  among  other  things,  a  gross  and 
narrow  anthropomorphism  as  the  necessary  consequence 
of  views  opposed  to  those  which  they  themselves  advocate. 
Mr.  Darwin  and  others  may  perhaps  be  excused  if  they 
have  not  devoted  much  time  to  the  study  of  Christian  phi- 
losophy ;  but  they  have  no  right  to  assume  or  accept  with- 
out careful  examination,  as  an  unquestioned  fact,  that  in 
that  philosophy  there  is  a  necessary  antagonism  between  \/^ 
the  two  ideas,  "  creation  "  and  "  evolution,"  as  applied  to 
organic  forms. 

It  is  notorious  and  patent  to  all  who  choose  to  seek, 
that  many  distinguished  Christian  thinkers  have  accepted 
and  do  accept  both  ideas,  i.  e.,  both  "  creation  "  and  "  evo- 
lution." 

As  much  as  ten  years  ago,  an  eminently  Christian  writer^ 
observed :  "  The  creationist  theory  does  not  necessitate  the 


30  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

perpetual  search  after  manifestations  of  miraculous  powers 
and  perpetual  '  catastrophes.'  Creation  is  not  a  miraculous 
interference  with  the  laws  of  Nature,  but  the  very  institu- 
tion of  those  laws.  Law  and  regularity,  not  arbitrary  in- 
tervention, was  the  patristic  ideal  of  creation.  With  this 
notion,  they  admitted  without  difiiculty  the  most  surprising 
origin  of  living  creatures,  provided  it  took  place  by  law. 
They  held  that  when  God  said,  '  Let  tlie  waters  j)rodu(;e,' 
'  Let  the  earth  produce,'  lie  conferred  forces  on  the  ele- 
ments of  earth  and  water,  which  enabled  them  naturally  to 
produce  the  various  species  of  organic  beings.  This  power, 
they  thought,  remains  attached  to  the  elements  throughout 
all  time."  "  The  same  writer  quotes  St.  Augustine  and  St. 
Thomas  Aquinas,  to  the  eflect  that,  "  in  the  institution  of 
Nature  Ave  do  not  look  for  miracles,  but  for  the  laws  of  Na- 
ture." "  And,  again,  St.  Basil,'''  speaks  of  tlie  continued 
operation  of  natural  laws  in  the  production  of  all  organ- 
isms. 

So  much  foi  writers  of  early  and  medi.neval  times.  As 
to  the  present  day,  the  author  can  confidently  ailirm  that 
there  are  many  as  well  versed  in  theology  as  Mr.  Darwin  is 
in  his  own  department  of  natural  knowledge,  who  would 
not  be  disturbed  by  the  thorough  demonstration  of  his 
theory.  Nay,  they  would  not  even  be  in  the  least  painful- 
ly affected  at  witnessing  the  generation  of  animals  of  com- 
plex organization  by  the  skilful  artificial  arrangement  of 
natural  forces,  and  the  production,  in  the  future,  of  a  fish, 
by  means  analogous  to  those  by  which  we  now  ])roduce  urea. 

And  this  because  they  know  that  the  possibility  of  such 
phenomena,  though  by  no  means  actually  foreseen,  has  yet 

'0  77m;  Rambler,  March,  1860,  vol.  xii.,  p.  372. 

"  "In  priiusl  institutiono  naturai  non  cjuairittir  miraculura,  sed  quid 
natura  rcruni  habeat,  ut  Augustiuus  dicit,  lib.  ii.,  sup.  Gen.  and  lit,  c.  1." 
(St.  Thomas,  Sum.  I«  Ixvii.  4,  ad  3.) 

"  "Ilcxaem."  Iloin.  ix.,  p.  81. 


I.J  INTRODUCTORY.  31 

been  fully  provided  for  in  the  old  philosophy  centuries  be- 
fore Darwin,  or  even  before  Bacon,  and  that  tiieir  place  in 
the  sypieni  can  be  at  once  assigned  them  without  even  dis- 
turbing its  order  or  marring  its  harmony. 

Moreover,  the  old  tradition  in  this  respect  has  never 
been  abandoned,  however  much  it  may  have  been  ignored 
or  neglected  by  some  modern  writers.  In  proof  of  this  it 
may  be  observed  that  perhaps  no  post-media3vaI  theologian 
has  a  wider  reception  among  Christians  throughout  the 
world  than  Suarez,  who  has  a  separate  section  "  in  opposi- 
tion to  those  who  maintain  the  distinct  creation  of  the  vari- 
ous kinds — or  substantial  forms — of  organic  life. 

]5ut  the  consideration  of  this  matter  must  be  deferred 
for  the  present,  and  the  question  of  evolution,  whether  Dar- 
winian or  other,  be  first  gone  into.  It  is  j)roposcd,  after 
that  has  been  done,  to  return  to  this  subject  (here  merely 
alluded  to),  and  to  consider  at  some  length  the  bearing  of 
"  Evolution,"  whether  Darwinian  or  non-Darwinian,  upon 
"  Creation  and  Theism." 

Now  we  will  revert  simply  to  the  consideration  of  the 
theory  of  "  Natural  Selection  "  itself. 

Whatever  may  have  hitherto  been  the  amount  of  ac- 
ceptance that  this  theory  has  met  with,  all,  I  think,  anti- 
cipated that  the  appearance  of  Mr.  Darwin's  large  and  care- 
ful work  on  "Animals  and  Plants  under  Domestication" 
could  but  further  increase  that  acceptance.  It  is,  however, 
somewhat  problematical  how  far  such  anticipations  will  be 
realized.  The  newer  book  seems  to  add  after  all  but  little 
in  sup[)ort  of  the  theory,  and  to  leave  most,  if  not  all,  its 
difficulties  exactly  where  they  were.  It  is  a  question,  also, 
whether   the   hypothesis  of  "  Pangenesis "  '*   may  not  be 

"  Suarcz,  Mctapliysica.  Edition  Viv6s.  Paris,  18G8.  Vol.  I.  Dis- 
putatio  XV.,  §  2. 

^*  "  raiigcncsis  "  is  tho  name  of  the  new  theory  proposed  by  Mr. 
Darwin,  in  order  to  account  for  various  obscure  physiological  facts,  such, 


32  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

found  rather  to  encumber  than  to  support  tlie  theory  it  was 
intended  to  subserve.  However,  the  work  in  question 
treats  only  of  domestic  animals,  and  probably  the  next  in- 
stalment will  address  itself  more  vigorously  and  directly  to 
the  difhcultics  which  seem  to  us  yet  to  bar  the  way  to  a 
complete  acceptance  of  the  doctrine. 

>  If  the  theory  of  Natural  Selection  can  be  shown  to  be 
quite  insulhcient  to  exi)lain  any  considerable  number  of  im- 
portant phenomena  connected  with  the  origin  of  species, 
that  theory,  as  the  explanation,  must  be  considered  as  pro- 
visionally discredited.. 

If  other  causes  than  Natural  (including  sexual)  Selec- 
tion can  be  proved  to  have  acted — if  variation  can  in  any 
cases  be  proved  to  be  subject  to  certain  determinations  in 
special  directions  by  other  means  than  Natural  Selection, 
it  then  becomes  probable,  a  2)riori,  tliat  it  is  so  in  others, 
and  that  Natural  Selection  depends  upon,  and  only  supple- 
ments, such  means,  which  conception  is  opposed  to  the 
pure  Darwinian  position. 

Now  it  is  certain,  a  priori^  that  variation  is  obedient  to 
some  law,  and  therefore  that  "  Natural  Selection  "  itself 
must  be  capable  of  being  subsumed  into  some  higher  laAv; 
{ind  it  is  evident,  I  believe,  a  posteriorly  that  Natural  Se- ,/ 
lection  is,  at  the  very  least,  aided  and  supplemented  by 
some  other  agency. 

Admitting,  then,  organic  and  other  evolution,  and  that 
new  forms  of  animals  and  plants  (new  species,  genera,  etc.) 

e.  g.,  as  tho  occasional  reproduction,  by  individuals,  of  parts  which  they 
have  lost ;  the  appearunce  in  oflspring  of  parental,  and  sonictinies  of  re- 
mote ancestral,  characters,  etc.  It  accounts  for  these  plienomena  by 
supposing  that  every  creature  possesses  countless  indelinitely-niinute 
organic  atoms,  termed  *' geinmules,"  which  atoms  are  supposed  to  be 
generated  iu  every  part  of  every  organ,  to  be  in  constant  circulation 
about  the  body,  and  to  have  the  power  of  reproduction.  Moreover, 
atoms  from  every  part  are  supposed  to  be  stored  in  the  generative  prod- 
ucts. 


I.]  INTRODUCTORY.  33 

liave  from  time  to  time  been  evolved  from  preceding  ani- 
mals and  plants,  it  follows,  if  the  views  here  advocated  are 
true,  that  this  evolution  has  not  taken  place  by  the  action 
of  "  Natural  Selection  "  alone^  but  through  it  (among  other 
influences)  aided  by  the  concurrent  action  of  some  other  nat- 
ural law  or  laws,  at  present  undiscovered ;  and  probably 
that  the  genesis  of  species  takes  place  partly,  perhaps 
mainly,  through  laws  which  may  be  most  conveniently 
spoken  of  as  special  powers  and  tendencies  existing  in  each 
organism  ;  and  partly  through  influences  exerted  on  each 
by  surroimding  conditions  and  agencies  organic  and  inor- 
ganic, terrestrial  and  cosmical,  among  which  the  "survival 
of  the  fittest "  plays  a  certain  but  subordinate  part. 

The  theory  of  "  Natural  Selection  "  may  (though  it  need 
not)  be  taken  in  such  a  way  as  to  lead  men  to  regard  Iho 
present  organic  world  as  formed,  so  to  speak,  accidentally^ 
beautiful  and  wonderful  as  is  confessedlj^  the  hap-hazard 
result.  The  same  may  perhaps  be  said  with  regard  to  the 
system  advocated  by  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer,  who,  however; 
also  relegates  "Natural  Selection"  to  a  subordinate  role. 
The  vi(;w  here  advocated,  on  the  other  hand,  regards  the 
whole  organic  world  as  arising  and  going  forward  in  one 
harmonious  development  similar  to  that  which  displays  it- 
self in  the  growth  and  action  of  each  separate  individual 
organism.  It  also  regards  each  such  separate  organism  as 
the  expression  of  powers  and  tendencies  not  to  be  accounted 
for  by  "  Natural  Selection  "  alone,  or  even  by  that  together 
with  merely  the  direct  influence  of  surrounding  conditions. 

The  difliculties  which  appear  to  oppose  themselves  to 
the  reception  of  "  Natural  Selection  "  or  "  the  survival  of 
the  fittest,"  as  the  one  explanation  of  the  origin  of  spe- 
cies, have  no  doubt  been  already  considered  by  Mr.  Dar- 
win. Nevertlieless,  it  may  be  Avorth  while  to  enumerate 
them,  and  to  state  the  considerations  which  appear  to  give 
them  weight ;  and  there  is  no  doubt  but   that  a  naturalist 


34  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

SO  candid  and  careful  as  the  author  of  the  theory  in  ques- 
tion, will  feel  obliged,  rather  than  the  reverse,  by  the  sug- 
gestion of  all  the  doubts  and  dilliculties  which  can  be 
brought  against  it. 

What  is  to  be  brought  forward  may  be  summed  up  as 
follows  : 

Tliat  "  Natural    Selection  "  is  incompetent  to  account  yj 
for  the  incipient  stages  of  useful  structures. 

That  it  does  not  harmonize  with  the  coexistence  of 
closely-similar  structures  of  diverse  origin. 

That  tlicre  are  grounds  for  thinking  that  specific  dif- 
ferences may  be  developed  suddenly  instead  of  gradually. 

That  the  opinion  that  species  have  definite  though  very 
different  limits  to  their  variability  is  still  tenable. 

That  certain  fossil  transitional  forms  are  absent,  which 
might  have  been  exi)cctcd  to  be  present. 

That  some  fticts  of  geographical  distribution  supple- 
ment other  dilliculties. 

That  the  objection  drawn  from  the  physiological  dif- 
ference between  "  species  "  and  "  races  "  still  exists  unre- 
futed. 

Tliat  there  are  many  rcmarka])le  phenomena  in  organic 
forms  upon  which  *'  Natural  Selection  "  throws  no  light 
whatever,  but  the  explanations  of  which,  if  they  could  be 
attained,  might  throw  light  upon  specific  origination. 

Besides  these  objections  to  the  sulHciency  of  "  Natural 
Selection,"  others  may  be  brought  against  the  hypothesis 
of  "  Pangenesis,"  which,  professing  as  it  does  to  explain 
great  dilliculties,  seems  to  do  so  by  presenting  others  not 
less  great — almost  to  be  the  explanation  of  obscuniin  per 
ohscuriiis. 


II.]  INCIPIENT  STRUCTURES.  •  35 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE  INCOMPETENCY  OF  "  NATURAL.  SELECTION  "  TO  AC- 
COUNT FOR  THE  INCIPIENT  STAGES  OF  USEFUL  STRUCT- 
URES. 

Mr.  Dnnvin  siipposos  (lint  Natural  SplocMon  arts  hy  Rllirlit  Variations. — TIicbo  must  bo 
URofiil  nt  oiico. — I)ini("\iItloa  a.s  to  tlio  OiralTo;  as  toMimirry;  a.s  to  tho  Ilt'ads  of 
Flat-flshos;  na  to  tlio  <)rl>,'ln  ami  (^otiHtnnoy  of  llin  Vorto!)mt(»  LIriihs;  as  to  Whalf- 
boiip;  as  to  flip  Yo\iii(?  Katiparoo;  iw  to  8oa-nrcliins;  as  to  cortaln  IVwcssos  of 
Metarnorpliosis ;  as  to  the  Mammary -plaud  ;  as  to  ccrtnin  Apo  Choractors ;  as  to 
the  Rattic'^nakc  and  Cobi-a;  as  to  tho  Process  of  Formation  of  thoEyo  ami  Ear,  as 
to  the  Fiilly-devcloped  Condition  of  the  Eye  and  Ear;  as  to  tho  Voice;  as  to  Shell- 
fish; as  to  Orchids;  as  to  Antfl. — tho  Necessity  for  tho  Simultaneous  Modification 
of  Many  Individuals. — Summary  and  Conclusion. 

"  Natural  Selection,"  simply  and  by  itself,  is  potent 
to  explain  the  maintenance  or  the  further  extension  and 
development  of  favorable  variations,  which  are  at  once  suf- 
ficiently considerable  to  be  useful  from  the  first  to  the  indi- 
vidual possessing  them.  But  Natural  Selection  utterly  fails 
to  account  for  the  conservation  and  development  of  the 
minute  and  rudimentary  beginnings,  the  slight  and  infini- 
tesimal commencements  of  structures,  however  useful  those 
structures  may  afterward  become. 

Now,  it  is  distinctly  enunciated  by  Mr.  Darwin,  that  the 
spontaneous  variations  upon  which  his  theory  depends  are 
individually  slight,  minute,  and  insensible.  He  says,* 
"  Slight  individual  differences,  however,  suffice  for  the  > 
work,  and  are  proba})ly  the  sole  differences  which  are  effec- 
tivc  in  the  production  of  new  species."     And  again,  after 

*  "Animals  and  Tlants  under  Domestication,"  vol.  ii.,  p.  192 


36  THE   GENESIS   OF   SPECIES.  [Chap. 

mentioning*  the  frequent  sudden  appearances  of  domestic 
varieties,  he  speaks  of  "  the  false  belief  as  to  the  similarity 
of  natural  species  in  this  respect."  ^  In  his  work  on  the 
"Origin  of  Species,"  he  also  observes,  "Natural  Selection 
acts  only  by  the  preservation  and  accumulation  of  small 
inherited  modifications."  '  And  "  Natural  Selection,  if  it 
be  a  true  princij)le,  will  banish  the  belief  ...  of  any  great 
and  sudden  modification  in  their  structure."  *  Finally,  he 
adds,  "  If  it  could  be  demonstrated  that  any  complex  oi-gan 
existed,  which  could  not  possibly  have  been  formed  by  nu- 
merous, successive,  slight  modifications,  my  theory  would 
absolutely  break  down." ' 

Now  the  conservation  of  minute  variations  in  many 
instances  is,  of  course,  plain  and  intelligible  enough ;  such 
e.  g.,  as  those  which  tend  to  promote  the  destructive  facul- 
ties of  beasts  of  prey  on  the  one  hand,  or  to  facilitate  the 
llight  or  concealment  of  the  animals  pui-sued  on  the  other ; 
provided  always  that  these  minute  beginnings  are  of  such 
a  kind  as  really  to  have  a  certain  efliciency,  however  small, 
in  favor  of  the  conservation  of  the  individual  possessing 
them;  and  also  provided  that  no  unfavorable  peculiarity 
in  any  other  direction  accompanies  and  neutralizes,  in  the 
sti-uggle  for  life,  the  minute  favorable  variation. 

But  some  of  the  cases  which  have  been  brouirht  for- 
ward,  and  which  have  met  with  very  general  acceptance, 
seem  less  satisfactory  when  carefully  analyzed  than  they  at 
first  appear  to  be.  Among  these  we  m.ay  mention  "  the 
neck  of  the  giraffe." 

At  first  sight  it  would  seem  as  though  a  better  exam- 
ple in  support  of  "  Natural  Selection  "  could  hardly  have 
been  chosen.  Let  the  fact  of  the  occurrence  of  occasional 
severe  droughts  in  the  country  which   that   animal   has   in- 

*  "Animals  and  Plants  under  Domestication,"  vol.  ii.,  p.  114. 

3  "Origin  of  Species,"  5th  edit.,  18G9,  p.  110. 

*Ibid.,  p.  111.  Mh'id.,  p.  227. 


II.]  INCIPIENT  STRUCTURES.  37 

habited  be  granted.  In  that  case,  when  the  ground  vege- 
tation has  been  consumed,  and  the  trees  alone  remain,  it  is 
phiin  that  at  such  times  only  those  individuals  (of  what  we 
assume  to  be  the  nascent  giraffe  species)  which  were  able 
to  reach  high  up  would  be  preserved,  and  would  become 
the  })arents  of  the  following  generation,  some  individuals 
of  which  would,  of  course,  inherit  that  high-reaching  power 
which  alone  preserved  their  parents.  Only  the  high-reach- 
ing issue  of  these  high-reaching  individuals  would  again, 
Cfrtcrifi  p<trihus^  be  ])reserved  at  the  next  droughi,  and 
would  again  transmit  to  their  offsi)ring  their  still  loftier 
stature;  and  so  on,  from  period  to  period,  through  a3ons  of 
time,  all  the  individuals  tending  to  revert  to  the  ancient 
short(;r  type  of  body,  being  rutlilessly  destroyed  at  the  oc- 
currence of  each  drought. 

(1.)  Jiut  against  this  it  may  be  said,  in  the  first  place, 
that  the  argument  proves  too  much  ;  for,  on  this  supposi- 
tion, many  species  must  have  tended  to  undergo  a  similar 
modification,  and  we  ought  to  have  at  least  several  forms, 
similar  to  the  giraffe,  developed  from  different  Ungulata.' 
A  careful  observer  of  animal  life,  who  has  long  resided  in 
South  Africa,  explored  the  interior,  and  lived  in  the  giraffe 
country,  has  assured  the  author  that  the  giraffe  has  powers 
of  locomotion  and  endurance  fully  equal  to  those  possessed 
by  any  of  the  other  Ungulata  of  that  continent.  It  would 
seem,  therefore,  that  some  of  these  other  Ungulates  ought 
to  have  developed  in  a  similar  manner  as  to  the  neck,  under 
pain  of  being  starved,  when  the  long  neck  of  the  giraffe 
was  in  its  incipient  stage. 

To  this  criticism  it  has  been  objected  that  different  kinds 
of  animals  are  preserved,  in  the  struggle  for  life,  in  very 
different  ways,  and  even  that  "high  reaching"  may  be  at- 

®  The  order  Unxjnlhln  contains  the  hoofed  beasts  ;  that  is,  nil  oxen, 
deer,  antelopes,  sheep,  goats,  eanicls,  hogs,  the  hippopotamus,  the  differ- 
ent  kinds  of  rhinoeeros,  the  tapirs,  horses,  asses,  zebras,  qunggas,  etc. 


38  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

tained  in  more  modes  than  one — as,  for  example,  by  the 
trunk  of  the  elepliant.  This  is,  indeed,  true,  but  then  none 
of  the  African  Ungulata  ^  liave,  nor  do  they  appear  ever  to 
have  had,  any  proboscis  whatsoever;  nor  have  they  ac- 
quired sucli  a  development  as  to  allow  them  to  rise  on  their 
liind-limbs  and  graze  on  trees  in  a  kangaroo  attitude,  nor  a 
power  of  climbing,  nor,  as  far  as  known,  any  other  modifi- 
cation tending  to  comj^ensate  for  the  comparative  shortness 
of  the  neck.  Again,  it  may  perhaps  be  said  that  leaf-eating 
forms  are  exceptional,  and  that  therefore  the  struggle  to 
attain  high  branches  would  not  affect  many  Ungulates. 
But  surely,  when  these  severe  droughts  necessary  for  the 
theory  occur,  the  ground  vegetation  is  supposed  to  be 
exhausted  ;  and,  indeed,  the  giraffe  is  quite  capable  of  feed- 
ing from  off  the  ground.  So  that,  in  these  cases,  the  other 
Ungulata  imist  have  taken  to  leaf-eating  or  have  starved, 
and  thus  must  have  had  any  accidental  long-necked  varieties 
favored  and  preserved  exactly  as  the  long-necked  varieties 
of  the  giraffe  are  supposed  to  have  been  favored  and  pre- 
served. 

The  argument  as  to  the  different  modes  of  preservation 
has  been  very  well  put  by  Mr.  Wallace,*  in  reply  to  the 
objection  that  "color,  being  dangerous,  should  not  exist  in 
Nature."  This  objection  appears  similar  to  mine  ;  as  I  say 
that  a  giraffe  neck,  being  needful,  there  should  be  many 
animals  with  it,  while  the  objector  noticed  by  Mr.  Wallace 
says,  "A  dull  color  being  needful,  all  animals  should  be  so 
colored."  And  Mr.  "Wallace  shows  in  reply  how  porcupines, 
tortoises,  and  nuissels,  very  hard-coated  bonibadier  beetles, 
stinging  insects,  and  nauseous-tasted  caterj)illars,  can  aflord 
to  be  brilliant  by  the  various  means  of  active  defence  or 
l)assive  })rotection  they  possess,  other  than  obscure  colora- 

'  The  elephants  of  Africa  and  India,  with  their  extinct  allies,  consti- 
tute the  order  Prohoschka,  and  do  not  belong  to  the  Ungulata. 
*  See  "  Natural  Selection,"  pp.  60-75. 


II.]  INCIPIENT  STRUCTURES.  39 

lion.  lie  says :  "  The  ntlitudes  of  some  insects  may  also 
protect  them,  as  the  habit  of  turning  up  the  tail  by  the 
harmless  rove-beetles  (Staphylinida;),  no  doubt  leads  other 
animals,  besides  children,  to  the  belief  that  they  can  sting. 
The  curious  attitude  assumed  l^y  sphinx  caterpillars  is  j)rob- 
ably  a  safeguard,  as  well  as  the  blood-red  tentacles  which 
can  suddenly  be  thrown  out  from  the  neck  b}-  the  caterpil- 
lars of  all  the  true  swallow-tailed  butterflies." 

But,  because  manj'  different  kinds  of  animals  can  elude 
the  observation  or  defy  the  attack  of  enemies  in  a  great 
variety  of  ways,  it  by  no  means  follows  that  there  are  any 
similar  number  and  variety  of  ways  for  attaining  vegetable 
food  in  a  country  where  all  such  food,  other  than  the 
lofty  branches  of  trees,  has  been  for  a  time  destroj^ed.  In 
such  a  country  we  have  a  number  of  vegetable-feeding  Un- 
gulates, all  of  which  present  minute  variations  as  to  the 
length  of  the  neck.  If,  as  Mr.  Darwin  contends,  the  natural 
selection  of  these  favorable  variations  has  alone  lengthened 
the  neck  of  the  giraffe  by  preserving  it  during  droughts ; 
similar  variations,  in  similarly  feeding  forms,  at  the  same 
times,  ought  similarly  to  iiave  been  preserved  and  so  length- 
ened the  neck  of  some  other  Ungulates  by  similarly  pre- 
serving them  during  the  same  droughts. 

(2.)  It  may  be  also  objected,  that  the  power  of  reaching 
upward,  acquired  by  the  lengthening  of  the  neck  and  legs, 
must  have  necessitated  a  considerable  increase  in  the  entire 
size  and  m;iss  of  the  body  (larger  bones  rec^uiring  stronger 
and  more  voluminous  muscles  and  tendons,  and  these 
again  necessitating  larger  nerves,  more  capacious  blood- 
vessels, etc.),  and  it  is  very  problematical  whether  the  dis- 
advantages thence  arising  would  not,  in  times  of  scarcity, 
more  than  counteibalance  the  advantages. 

For  a  considerable  increase  in  the  supply  of  food  would 
be  requisite  on  account  of  this  increase  in  size  and  mass, 
while  at  the  same  time  there  would  be  a  certain  decrease 


40  Tllf]   GENESIS   OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

in  strength ;  for,  as  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer  says,'  "  It  is  de- 
monstrable that  the  excess  of  absorbed  over  expended  nu- 
triment must,  other  things  equal,  become  less  as  the  size  of 
an   animal   becomes   greater.     In   similarly-shaped  bodies, 
the  masses  vary  as  the  cubes  of  the  dimensions  ;  whereas 
the  strengths  vary  as  the  squares  of  the  dimensions."  .  .  . 
"Suj)posing  a  creature  which  a  year  ago  was  one  foot  high, 
has  now  become  two  feet  high,  while  it  is  unchanged  in 
proportions    and    structure — what  are    the    necessary  con- 
comitant changes  that  have  taken  place  in  it  ?     It  is  eight 
times  as  heavy ;  that  is  to  say,  it  has  to  resist  eight  times 
the  strain  which  gravitation  puts  on  its  structure;  and  in 
producing,  as  well   as  in  arresting,  every  one  of  its  move- 
ments, it  has  to  overcome  eight  times  the  inertia.     Mean- 
while, the  muscles  and  bones  have  severally  increased  their 
contractile  and  resisting  powers,  in  proportion  to  the  areas 
of  their  transverse  sections ;  and  hence  are  severally  but 
four  times  as  strong  as  they  were.    Thus,  while  the  creature 
has  doubled  in  height,  and  while  its  ability  to  overcome 
forces  has  quadrupled,  the  forces  it  has  to  overcome  have 
grown    eight    times   as   great.     Hence,  to    raise    its  body 
through  a  given  space,  its  muscles  have  to  be  contracted 
with   twice  the  intensity,  at  a  double  cost  of  matter  ex- 
pended."    Again,  as  to  the  cost  at  which  nutriment  is  dis- 
tributed through  the  body,  and  effete  matters  removed  from 
it,  "  Each  increment  of  growth  being  added  at  the  periphery 
of  an  organism,  the  force  expended  in  the  transfer  of  mat- 
ter must  increase   in  a  rapid    f)rogression — a  progression 
more  rapid  than  that  of  the  mass." 

There  is  yet  another  point.  Vast  as  may  have  been  the 
time  during  which  the  process  of  evolution  has  continued, 
it  is,  nevertheless,  not  infinite.  Yet,  as  every  kind,  on  the 
Darwinian  hypothesis,  varies  slightly  but  indefinitely  in 
every  organ  and  every  part  of  every  organ,  how  very  gen- 

•  "  Piiiiciplcs  of  Biology,"  vol.  !.,  p.  122. 


II.]  INCiriENT   STRUCTURES.  41 

erally  iiiiist  favorable  variations  as  to  the  length  of  the  neck 
have  been  accompanied  by  some  unfavorable  variation  in 
some  other  part,  neutralizing  the  .action  of  the  favorable 
one,  the  latter,  moreover,  only  taking  effect  during  these 
periods  of  drought  I  How  often  must  not  individuals,  fa- 
vored by  i\  slightly-increased  length  of  neck,  have  failed  to 
enjoy  the  elevated  foliage  which  they  had  not  strength  or 
endurance  to  attain  ;  while  other  individuals,  exceptionally 
robust,  could  struggle  on  yet  further  till  they  arrived  at 
vegetation  within  their  reach ! 

However,  allowing  this  example  to  pass,  many  other  in- 
stances will  be  found  to  present  great  difficulties. 

Let  us  take  the  cases  of  mimicry  among  lepidoptera  and 
other  insects.  Of  this  subject  Mr.  Wallace  has  given  a  most 
interesting  and  complete  account,"  showing  in  how  many 
and  strange  instances  this  superficial  resemblance  by  one 
creature  to  some  other  quite  distinct  creature  acts  as  a  safe- 
guard to  the  first.  One  or  two  instances  must  here  suffice. 
In  South  America  there  is  a  family  of  butterflies,  termed 
JIelico7iidw,  which  arc  very  conspicuously  colored  and  slow 
in  flight,  and  yet  the  individuals  abound  in  prodigious  num- 
bers, and  take  no  precautions  to  conceal  themselv^es,  even 
when  at  rest,  during  the  night.  Mr.  Bates  (the  author  of 
the  very  interesting  work  "  The  Naturalist  on  the  River 
Amazons,"  and  the  discoverer  of  "Mimicry")  found  that 
these  conspicuous  butterflies  had  a  very  strong  and  disa- 
greeable odor ;  so  much  so  that  any  one  handling  them  and 
S(|ucczing  them,  as  a  collector  must  do,  has  his  fingers 
stained  and  so  infected  by  the  smell,  as  to  require  time  and 
much  trouble  to  remove  it. 

Tt  is  suggested  that  this  unpleasant  quality  is  the  cause 
of  the  abundance  of  the  Hcliconidne ;  Mr.  Bates  and  other 
observers  reporting  that  they   have  never  seen   them  at- 
'"  Sec  "  Natural  Selection,"  chap,  iii.,  p.  45. 


42  THE   GENESIS   OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

tacked  by  the  birds,  reptiles,  or  insects,  wliicli  prey  upon 
other  lepidopteni. 

Now  it  is  a  curious  fact  tliat  very  dilVerent  South  Amer- 
ican butterflies  put  on,  as  it  were,  the  exact  dress  of  these 
offensive  beauties  and  mimic  them  even  in  their  mode  of 
flight. 

In  explaining  the  mode  of  action  of  this  protecting  re- 
semblance Mr.  Wallace  observes :  "  "  Tropical  insectivorous 
birds  very  frequently  sit  on  dead  branches  of  a  lofty  tree, 
or  on  those  which  overhang  forest-})aths,  gazing  intently 
around,  and  darting  off  at  intervals  to  seize  an  insect  at  a 
considerable  distance,  with  which  they  generally  return  to 
their  station  to  devour.  If  a  bird  began  by  capturing  the 
slow-flying  conspicuous  Ileliconidai,  and  found  them  always 
so  disagreeable  that  it  could  not  cat  them,  it  would  after  a 
very  few  trials  leave  off  catching  them  at  all ;  and  their 
whole  appearance,  form,  coloring,  and  mode  of  flight,  is  so 
peculiar,  that  there  can  be  little  doubt  birds  would  soon 
learn  to  distinguish  them  at  a  long  distiince,  and  never 
waste  any  time  in  pursuit  of  them.  Under  these  circum- 
stances, it  is  evident  that  any  other  butterfly  of  a  group 
which  birds  were  accustomed  to  devour,  woidd  be  almost 
equally  well  protected  by  closely  resembling  a  Ileliconia 
externally,  as  if  it  acquired  also  the  disagreeable  odor ; 
always  supposing  that  there  were  only  a  few  of  them  among 
a  great  number  of  Helicon ias." 

"The  approach  in  color  and  form  to  the  Heliconidie, 
however,  would  be  at  the  first  a  positive,  though  peihaps  a 
slight,  advantage ;  for  although  at  short  distances  this  va- 
riety would  be  easily  distinguished  and  devoured,  yet  at  a 
longer  distance  it  might  be  mistaken  for  one  of  the  uneat- 
able group,  and  so  be  passed  by  and  gain  another  day's 
life,  which  might  in  many  cases  be  sufhcient  for  it  to  lay  a 
quantity  of  eggs  and  leave  a  numerous  progeny,  many  of 

'*  Loc.  cit.,  p.  80. 


II.] 


INCIPIENT   STRUCTURES. 


43 


wliicli   would  inherit  the  peculiarity  which  had  been  the 
safeguard  of  their  parent." 


LEAF  BUTTERFLY  IN  FLIGHT  AND  REPOSE. 

(From  Mr.  Wallace's  "■Malay  Archipelago:") 
As  a  complete  example  of  mimicry  Mr.  "Wallace  refers 


44  TIIL:   GExNESIS  of  species.  LCuap. 

to  a  common  Indian  butterfly.  He  says  :  '^  "  But  the  most 
wonderful  and  undou])ted  case  of  protective  resemblance  in 
a  butterfly,  which  1  have  ever  seen,  is  that  of  the  common 
Indian  Kalluna  inachis^  and  its  Malayan  ally,  Kalliina 
paraleJcta.  The  upper  surface  of  these  is  very  striking  and 
showy,  as  they  are  of  a  large  size,  and  are  adorned  with  a 
broad  band  of  rich  orange  on  a  deep-bluish  ground.  The 
under  side  is  very  variable  in  color,  so  that  out  of  fifty 
specimens  no  two  can  be  found  exactly  alike,  but  every  one 
of  them  will  be  of  some  shade  of  ash,  or  brown,  or  ochre, 
such  as  are  found  among  dead,  dry,  or  decaying  leaves. 
The  apex  of  the  upper  wings  is  produced  into  an  acute 
point,  a  very  common  form  in  the  leaves  of  tropical  shrubs 
and  trees,  and  the  lower  wings  are  also  j)roduced  into  u 
short,  narrow  tail.  ]5etween  these  two  points  runs  a  dark 
curved  line  exactly  representing  the  midrib  of  a  leaf,  and 
from  this  radiate  on  each  side  a  few  oblique  lines,  which 
serve  to  indicate  the  lateral  veins  of  a  leaf.  These  marks 
are  more  clearly  seen  on  the  outer  portion  of  the  base  of 
the  wings,  and  on  the  inner  side  toward  the  middle  and 
apex,  and  it  is  very  curious  to  observe  how  the  usual  mar- 
ginal and  transverse  stria3  of  the  group  are  here  modified 
and  strengthened  so  as  to  become  adapted  for  an  imitation 
of  the  venation  of  a  leaf."  ..."  But  this  resemblance, 
close  as  it  is,  would  be  of  little  use  if  the  habits  of  the  in- 
sect did  not  accord  with  it.  If  the  butterfly  sat  upon  leaves 
or  upon  flowers,  or  opened  its  wings  so  as  to  expose  the 
upper  surface,  or  exposed  and  moved  its  head  and  antennui 
as  many  other  butterflies  do,  its  disguise  would  be  of  little 
avail.  We  might  be  sure,  however,  from  the  analogy  of 
many  other  cases,  that  the  habits  of  the  insect  are  such 
as  still  further  to  aid  its  deceptive  garb ;  but  we  are  not 
obliged  to  make  any  such  supposition,  since  I  myself  had 
the  good  foitune  to  observe  scores  of  Kalluna  paralekta^ 

'^  Loc.  cit.,  p.  59. 


II.]  INCIPIENT  STRUCTURES.  45 

in  Sumatra,  and  to  capture  many  of  them,  and  can  vouch 
for  the  accuracy  of  tlic  following  details.  These  butterflies 
fretpKMit  dry  forests,  and  lly  very  swiftly.  They  were  seen 
to  settle  on  a  flower  or  a  green  leaf,  but  were  many  times 
lost  sight  of  in  a  bush  or  tree  of  dead  leaves.  On  such  oc- 
casions they  were  generally  searched  for  in  vain,  for  while 
gazing  intently  at  the  very  sj)ot  M'here  one  had  disappeared, 
it  would  often  suddenly  dart  out,  and  again  vanish  twenty 
or  fifty  yards  farther  on.  On  one  or  two  occasions  the  in- 
sect was  detected  reposing,  and  it  could  then  be  seen  how 
comj^letely  it  assimilates  itself  to  the  surrounding  leaves. 
It  sits  on  a  nearly  upright  twig,  the  wings  fitting  closely 
back  to  back,  concealing  the  antennae  and  head,  which  are 
drawn  up  between  their  bases.  The  little  tails  of  the  hind- 
wing  touch  the  branch,  and  form  a  perfect  stalk  to  the  leaf, 
which  is  supported  in  its  place  by  the  claws  of  the  middle 
pair  of  feet,  which  are  slender  and  inconspicuous.  The 
irregular  outline  of  the  wings  gives  exactly  the  perspective 
effect  of  a  shrivelled  leaf.  We  thus  have  size,  color,  form, 
markings,  and  habits,  all  combining  together  to  produce  a 
disguise  which  may  be  said  to  be  absolutely  perfect ;  and 
the  protection  which  it  affords  is  sufficiently  indicated  by 
the  abundance  of  the  individuals  that  possess  it." 

Beetles  also  imitate  bees  and  w.asps,  as  do  some  Lepi- 
doptera  ;  and  objects  the  most  bizarre  and  unexpected  are 
simulated,  such  as  dung  and  drops  of  dew.  Some  insects, 
called  bamboo  and  walking-stick  insects,  have  a  most  re- 
markable resemblance  to  ])ieces  of  bamboo,  to  twigs  and 
branchcvS.  Of  these  latter  insects  Mr.  Wallace  says :  " 
"  Some  of  these  are  a  foot  long  and  as  thick  as  one's  finger, 
and  their  whole  coloring,  form,  rugosity,  and  the  arrange- 
ment of  the  head,  legs,  and  antennae,  are  such  as  to  render 
them  absolutely  identical  in  appearance  with  dry  sticks. 
They  hang  loosely  ubout  shrubs  in  the  forest,  and  have  the 

'3  Loc.  cit.,  p.  64. 


46  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

extraordinary  liabit  of  stretching  out  their  legs  unsymmetri- 
cally,  so  as  to  render  the  deception  more  complete."  Now 
let  us  suppose  that  the  ancestors  of  these  various  animals 
were  all  destitute  of  the  very  special  protections  they  at 
present  possess,  as  on  the  Darwinian  hypothesis  we  must 
do.  Let  it  also  be  conceded  that  small  deviations  from  the 
antecedent  coloring  or  form  would  tend  to  make  some  of 
tlieir  ancestors  escape  destruction  by  causing  them  more  or 
less  frequently  to  be  passed  over,  or  misXaken  hy  tlieir 
persecutors.  Yet  the  deviation  nuist,  as  the  event  has 
shown,  in  each  case  be  in  some  definite  direction,  whether 
it  be  toward  some  other  animal  or  plant,  or  toward  some 
dead  or  inorganic  matter.  But  as,  according  to  Mr.  Dar- 
win's theory,  there  is  a  constant  tendency  to  indefinite  vari- 
ation, and  as  the  minute  incipient  variations  will  be  in  all 
directions,  they  nmst  tend  to  neutralize  each  other,  and  at 
first  to  form  such  unstable  modifications  that  it  is  difhcult, 
if  not  impossible,  to  see  how  such  indefinite  oscillations  of 
infinitesimal  beginnings  can  ever  build  up  a  sufficiently  ap- 
I)reciable  resemblance  to  a  leaf,  bamboo,  or  other  object, 
for  "  Natural  Selection "  to  seize  upon  and  perpetuate. 
This  difficulty  is  augmented  when  we  consitler — a  point  to 
be  dwelt  upon  hereafter — how  necessary  it  is  that  many  in- 
dividuals should  be  similarly  modified  sinmltaneously.  This 
has  been  insisted  on  in  an  able  article  in  the  North  liritisJi 
Jieview  for  June,  18G7,  p.  286,  and  the  consideration  of  the 
article  has  occasioned  Mr.  Darwin  to  make  an  important 
modification  in  his  views.  '* 

In  these  cases  of  mimicry  it  seems  diffi(uilt  indeed  to  im- 
agine a  reason  why  variations  tending  in  an  injiiiitesimal 
degree  in  any  special  direction  should  be  preserved.  All 
variations  would  be  j)rcserved  which  tended  to  obscure  the 
perception  of  an  animal  by  its  enemies,  whatever  direction 
tliose  variations  might  take,  and  the  common  preservation 

•^  "Origin  of  Species."  5tli  ctlit.,  p.  10-1. 


II.] 


INCIPIENT  STRUCTURES. 


47 


of  conflicting  tendencies  would  greatly  favor  their  mutual 
neutralization  and  obliteration  if  we  may  rely  on  the  many 
cases  recently  brought  forward  by  Mr.  Darwin  with  regard 
to  domestic  animals. 

Mr.  Darwin  explains  the  imitation  of  some  species  by 
others  more  or  less  nearly  alhcd  to  it,  by  the  conmion  origm 
of  both  the  mimic  and  the  mimicked  species,  and  the  conse- 


Tlin  WALKINO-IXAF  INSECT 


qucnt  possession  by  both  (according  to  the  theory  of  "  Pan- 
genesis ")  of  gemmules  tending  to  reproduce  ancestral 
characters,  which  characters  the  mimic  must  be  assumed 
first  to  have  lost  and  then  to  have  recovered.  Mr.  Darwin 
says,'*  "  Varieties  of  one  species  frequently  mimic  distinct 
species,  a  fact  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  foregoing  cases, 

"^  "Animals  and  Plants  under  Domestication,"  vol.  ii.,  p.  351. 


48  TIIR   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Ciup. 

and  explicable  onhj  oil  the  theory  of  descent. ^"^  But  this  at 
the  best  is  but  a  i)artial  and  very  iiicoinplctc  explanation. 
It  is  one,  moreover,  which  Mr.  Wallace  does  not  accept." 
It  is  very  incomplete,  because  it  has  no  bearing  on  some  of 
the  most  striking  cases,  and  of  course  Mr.  Darwin  does  not 
pretend  that  it  has.  We  should  have  to  go  back  far  indeed 
to  reach  the  common  ancestor  of  the  mimickinir  walkinn^- 
leaf  insect  and  the  real  leaf  it  mimics,  or  the  original  pro- 
genitor of  both  the  bamboo  insect  and  the  bamboo  itself. 
As  these  last  most  remarkable  cases  have  certainly  nothing 
to  do  with  heredity,"  it  is  unwarrantable  to  make  use  of  that 
explanation  for  other  protective  resemblances,  seeing  that 
its  inapplicability,  in  certain  instances,  is  so  manifest. 

Again,  at  the  other  end  of  the  process  it  is  as  difficult 
to  account  for  the  last  touches  of  j^erfection  in  the  mimicry. 
Some  insects  which  imitate  leaves  extend  the  imitation 
even  to  the  very  injuries  on  those  leaves  made  by  the  at- 
tacks of  insects  or  of  fungi.  Thus,  speaking  of  one  of  the 
walking-stick  insects,  Mr.  Wallace  says  :  *^  "  One  of  these 
creatures  obtained  by  myself  in  Borneo  ( Ceroxylus  lacera- 
tus)  was  covered  over  with  foliaceous  excrescences  of  a 
clear  olive-green  color,  so  as  exactly  to  resembhj  a  stick 
grown  over  by  a  creeping  moss  or  jungermannia.  'i'he 
Dyak  who  brought  it  me  assured  me  it  was  grown  over 
with  moss,  although  alive,  and  it  was  only  after  a  most  mi- 
nute examination  that  I  could  convince  myself  it  was  not 
so."  Again,  as  to  the  leaf-butterfly,  he  says  :  "  "  We  come 
to  a  still  more  extraordinary  part  of  the  imitation,  for  we 
find  representations  of  leaves  in  every  stage  of  decay,  vari- 
ously blotched,  and  mildewed,  and  i)ierced  with  holes,  and 
in  many  cases  irregularly  covered  with  powdery  black  dots, 

"  Loc.  cit.,  pp.  109,  110. 

^'  Heredity  is  the  term  used  to  denote  the  tendency  which  there  is  in 
offspring  to  reproduce  parental  features. 

»«  Loc.  cit.,  p.  61.  J9  Loc.  cit.,  p.  60. 


II.J 


INCIPIENT   STRUCTURES. 


49 


gathered  into  patches  and  spots,  so  closely  resembling  the 
various  kinds  of  minute   fungi   that  grow  on  dead  leaves 
that  it  is  impossible  to  avoid  thinking  at  first  sight  that  the 
butterllies  themselves  have  been  attacked  by  real  fungi." 

Here  imitation  has  attained  a  development  Avhich  seems 
utterly  beyond  the  power  of  the  mere  "  survival  of  the  fit- 
test "  to  produce.  How  this  double  mimicry  can  impor- 
tantly aid  in  the  struggle  for  life  seems  puzzling  indeed, 
but  much  more  so  how  the  first  faint  beginnings  of  the  im- 
itation of  such  injuries  in  the  leaf  can  be  developed  in  the 
animal  into  such  a  complete  representation  of  them — a  for- 
tiori how  simultaneous  and  similar  first  beginnings  of  imi- 
tations of  such  injuries  could  ever  have  been  developed  in 
several  individuals,  out  of  utterly  indifferent  and  indetermi- 
nate infinitesimal  variations  in  all  conceivable  directions. 

Another  instance  which  may  be  cited  is  the  asj'mmetrical 
condition  of  the  heads  of  the  flat-fishes  (Pleuronectidte), 
such  as  the  sole,  the  flounder,  the  brill,  the  turbot,  etc.     In 


PLEXTRONECTID^E,    WITH   THE   PECULIARLY-PLACED    EYE   IN  BIFFERENT    POSITIONS. 

{From  Dr.  Tratpiair's  paper  in  the  "  Transactions  of  the  Linnean  Society^  1865.'") 

all  these  fishes  the  two  eyes,  which  in  the  young  are  situ- 
ated as  usual  one  on  each  side,  come  to  be  placed,  in  the 
adult,  both  on  the  same  side  of  the  head.      If  this  condi- 
3 


60  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

tion  had  appeared  at  once,  if  in  the  liypotlietically  fortu- 
nate common  ancestor  of  these  fishes  an  eye  had  suddenly 
become  thus  transferred,  then  tlie  perpetuation  of  such 
a  transformation  by  the  action  of  "  Natural  Selection  "  is 
conceivable  enough.  Such  sudden  changes,  however,  are 
not  those  favored  by  the  Darwinian  theory,  and  indeed  the 
accidental  occurrence  of  such  a  spontaneous  transformation  is 
hardly  conceivable.  But  if  this  is  not  so,  if  the  transit  was 
gradual,  then  how  such  transit  of  one  eye  a  minute  fraction 
of  the  journey  toward  the  other  side  of  the  head  could  bene- 
fit the  individual  is  indeed  far  from  clear.  It  seems,  even, 
that  such  an  incipient  transformation  must  rather  have  been 
injurious.  Another  point  with  regard  to  these  flat-fishes  is 
that  they  a];)pear  to  be  in  all  probability  of  recent  origin — 
i.  e.,  geologically  speaking.  There  is,  of  course,  no  great 
stress  to  be  laid  on  the  mere  absence  of  their  remains  from 
the  secondary  strata,  nevertheless  that  absence  is  notewor- 
thy, seeing  that  existing  fish  families,  e,  g.,  sharks  (Squa- 
lida[j),  have  been  found  abundantly,  even  down  so  far  as 
the  carboniferous  rocks,  and  traces  of  them  in  the  Upper 
Silurian. 

Another  difficulty  seems  to  be  the  first  formation  of  the 
limbs  of  the  higher  animals.  The  lowest  Vertebrata"  are 
perfectly  limbless,  and  if,  as  most  Darwinians  would  prob- 
ably assume,  the  primeval  vertebrate  creature  was  also 
apodal,  how  are  the  preservation  and  development  of  the 
first  rudiments  of  limbs  to  be  accounted  for — such  rudi- 
ments being,  on  the  hypothesis  in  question,  infinitesimal 
and  functionless  ? 

.  In  reply  to  this,  it  has  been  suggested  that  a  mere  flat- 
tening of  the  end  of  the  body  has  been  useful,  such,  e.  g.,  as 

*°  The  term  '*  Vertcbrnta  "  denotes  tliat  large  group  of  animals  which 
ai'e  characterized  by  the  possession  of  a  spinal  colunm,  commonly  known 
as  the  "  backbone."  Such  animals  are  ourselves,  together  with  all  beasts, 
birds,  reptiles,  frogs,  toads,  and  efts,  and  also  fishes. 


II.]  INCIPIENT  STRUCTURES.  51 

we  see  in  sea-snakes,'"  which  may  be  the  rudiment  of  a  tail 
formed  strictly  to  aid  in  swimming.  Also  that  a  mere  rough- 
ncss  of  the  skin  might  be  useful  to  a  swimming  animal  by 
holding  the  water  better,  that  thus  minute  processes  might 
be  selected  and  preserved,  and  that,  in  the  same  way,  these 
might  be  gradually  increased  into  limbs.  But  it  is,  to  say 
the  least,  very  questionable  whether  a  roughness  of  the 
skin,  or  minute  processes,  would  be  useful  to  a  swimming 
animal ;  the  motion  of  which  they  would  as  much  impede 
as  aid,  unless  they  were  at  once  capable  of  a  suitable  and 
appropriate  action,  which  is  against  the  hypothesis.  Again, 
the  change  from  mere  indefinite  and  accidental  processes  to 
two  regular  pairs  of  symmetrical  limbs,  as  the  result  of 
merely  fortuitous,  favoring  variations,  is  a  step  the  feasibil- 
ity of  which  hardly  commends  itself  to  the  reason,  seeing 
the  very  different  positions  assumed  by  the  ventral  fins  in 
different  fishes.  If  the  above  suggestion  made  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  views  here  asserted  be  true,  then  the  general 
constancy  of  position  of  the  limbs  of  vertebrata  may  be 
considered  as  due  to  tlie  position  assumed  by  the  primitive 
rugosities  from  which  those  limbs  were  generated.  Clearly 
only  two  pairs  of  rugosities  were  so  preserved  and  devel- 
oped, and  all  limbs  (on  this  view)  are  descendants  of  the 
same  two  pairs,  as  all  have  so  similar  a  fundamental  struct- 
ure. Yet  we  find  in  many  fishes  the  pair  of  fins,  which 
correspond  to  the  hinder  limbs  of  other  animals,  placed  so 
far  forward  as  to  be  either  on  the  same  level  with,  or  actu- 
ally in  front  of,  the  normally  anterior  pair  of  limbs  ;  and 
such  fishes  are  from  this  circumstance  called  "  thoracic,"  or 
"  jugular  "  fishes  respectively,  as  the  weaver-fishes  and  the 
cod.  This  is  a  wonderful  contrast  to  the  fixity  of  position 
of  vertebrate  limbs  generally.     If,  then,  such  a  change  can 

'1  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  observe  that  these  "sca-siinkes  "  hare  no 
relation  to  the  often-talked-of  "  sea-serpent."  They  are  small,  venomous 
reptiles,  which  abound  in  the  Indian  seas. 


52 


THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES. 


[ClIAP. 


liave  taken  place  in  tlie  coinpanitively  short  time  occupied 
by  the  evolution  of  tiiese  special  lish  forms,  we  might  cer- 
tainly expect  other  and  far  more  bizarre  structures  would 
(did  not  some  law  forbid)  have  been  develo[)ed  fnjm  other 
rujrosities.  in  the  manifold  exiofencies  of  the  multitudinous 
organisms  which  must  (on  the  Darwinian  hypothesis)  have 
been  gradually  evolved  during  the  enormous  period  inter- 
vening between  the  first  appearance  of  vertebrate  life  and 
the  present  day.  Yet  with  these  exceptions,  the  position 
of  the  limbs  is  constant  from  the  lower  iishes  up  to  man, 
there  being  always  an  anterior  pectoral  pair  placed  in  front 
of  a  posterior  or  pelvic  pair  when  both  are  present,  and  in 
no  single  instance  are  there  more  than  these  two  pairs, 


••c^ 


UOUTU    OF    A    WUALE. 


The  development  of  whalebone  (baleen)  in   th&  mouth 
of  the  whale  is  another  dilTiculty.     A  whale's  mouth  is  fur- 


II.] 


INCIPIENT  STRUCTURES. 


53 


nislied  with  very  numerous  liorny  plates,  whicli  hang  down 
from  the  palate  along  each  side  of  the  mouth. 
Tliey  thus  form  two  longitudinal  series,  each 
plate  of  which  is  placed  transversely  to  the 
long  axis  of  the  body,  and  all  are  very  close 
together.  On  depressing  the  lower  lip  the 
free  outer  edges  of  these  plates  come  into 
view.  Their  inner  edges  are  furnished  with 
numerous  coarse  hair-like  processes,  consist- 
injr  of  some  of  the  constituent  fibres  of  the 
horny  plates — wiiich,  as  it  were,  fray  out — 
and  the  mouth  is  thus  lined,  except  below, 
by  a  net-work  of  countless  fibres  formeil  by 
the  inner  edges  of  the  two  series  of  plates. 
This  net-work  acts  as  a  sort  of  sieve.  When 
the  whale  feeds  it  takes  into  its  mouth  a 
great  gulp  of  water,  which  it  drives  out 
again    through    the    intervals    of   the    horny  7// 

plates  of  baleen,  the  fluid  thus  traversing  the 
sieve  of  horny  fibres,  whicli  retains  the  mi- 
nute crcafures  on  which  these  marine  mon- 
sters subsist.  Now  it  is  obvious,  that  if  this 
baleen  had  once  attained  such  a  size  and  de- 
velopment as  to  be  at  all  useful,  then  its  pres- 
ervation   and    augmentation   within    scrvico 

.  '       ,  T    ,  1    1  tl  -KT     1.  1         TOUn     ri.ATF.S     OF 

able  limits  would  be  promoted  by     JNatural       nAiFFv  bf.pn 
Selection  "  alone.      But  how  to  obtain  the  witbin. 


54  THE  GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

beginning  of  sucli  \iseful  development  ?  There  are  indeed 
certain  animals  of  exclusively  aquatic  habits  (the  dugong 
and  manatee)  which  also  possess  more  or  less  horn  on  the 
palate,  and  at  iirst  sight  this  might  be  taken  as  a  mitiga- 
tion of  the  difliculty ;  but  it  is  not  so,  and  the  fact  does 
not  help  us  one  Step  further  along  the  road  :  for,  in  tlie 
Iirst  place,  these  latter  animals  differ  so  importantly  in 
structure  from  whales  and  porpoises  that  they  form  an  al- 
together distinct  order,  and  cannot  be  thought  to  approxi- 
mate to  the  whale's  j^rogenitors.  They  are  vegetarians,  the 
whales  feed  on  animals ;  the  former  never  have  the  ribs  ar- 
ticulated in  the  mode  in  wdiich  they  are  in  some  of  the  lat- 
ter ;  the  former  have  pectoral  mammiE,  and  tlie  latter  are 
provided  with  two  inguinal  mammary  glands,  and  have  the 
nostrils  enlarged  into  blowers,  which  the  former  have  not. 
The  former  thus  constitute  the  order  Sirenia,  while  the  lat- 
ter belong  to  the  Cetacea.  In  the  second  place,  the  horny 
matter  on  the  palates  of  the  dugong  and  manatee  has 
not,  even  initially,  that  "  strainer "  action  which  is  the 
characteristic  function  of  the  Cetacean  "  baleen." 

There  is  another  very  curious  structure,  the  origin  or 
the  disappearance  of  which  it  seems  impossible  to  account 
for  on  the  hypothesis  of  minute  indefinite  variations.  It- is 
that  of  the  mouth  of  the  3'oung  kangaroo.  In  all  mam- 
mals, as  in  ourselves,  the  air-passage  from  the  lungs  opens 
in  the  floor  of  the  mouth  behind  the  tongue,  and  in  front 
of  the  opening  of  the  gullet,  so  that  each  particle  of  food 
as  it  is  swallowed  passes  over  the  opening,  but  is  prevented 
from  falling  into  it  (and  thus  causing  death  from  choking) 
by  the  action  of  a  small  cartilaginous  shield  (the  epiglottis), 
which  at  the  right  moment  bends  back  and  protects  the  ori- 
fice. Now  the  kangaroo  is  born  in  such  an  exceedingly 
imperfect  and  undeveloped  condition,  that  it  is  quite  unable 
to  suck.  The  mother,  therefore,  places  the  minute  blind 
and  naked  young  upon  the  nipple,  and  then  injects  milk 


II.]  INCIPIENT   STRUCTURES.  55 

into  it  by  means  of  a  special  muscular  envelope  of  the 
mammary  gland.  Did  no  special  provision  exist,  the  young 
one  must  infallibly  be  choked  by  the  intrusion  of  the  milk 
into  the  windpipe.  But  there  is  a  special  provision.  The 
larynx  is  so  elongated  that  it  rises  up  into  the  posterior 
end  of  the  nasal  passage,  and  is  thus  enabled  to  give  free 
entrance  to  the  air  for  the  lungs,  while  the  milk  passes 
harmlessly  on  each  side  of  this  elongated  larynx,  and  so 
safely  attains  the  gullet  behind  it. 

Now,  on  the  Darwinian  hypothesis,  either  all  mammals 
descended  from  marsupial  progenitors,  or  else  the  marsu- 
pials sprung  from  animals  having  in  most  respects  the  or- 
dinary mammalian  structure. 

On  the  first  alternative,  how  did  "  Natural  Selection " 
remove  this  (at  least  perfectly  innocent  and  harmless)  struct- 
ure in  almost  all  other  mammals,  and,  having  done  so, 
again  reproduce  it  in  precisely  those  forms  which  alone  re- 
quire it,  namely,  the  Cetacea  ?  That  such  a  harmless  struct- 
ure 7ieed  not  be  removed,  an}'^  Darwinian  must  confess, 
since  a  structure  exists  in  both  the  crocodiles  and  gavials, 
which  enables  the  former  to  breathe  themselves  while 
drowning  the  prey  which  they  hold  in  their  mouths.  On 
Mr.  Darwin's  hypothesis  it  could  only  have  been  developed 
where  useful,  therefore  not  in  the  gavials  (I)  which  feed  on 
fish,  but  which  yet  retain,  as  we  might  expect,  this,  in  them, 
superfluous  but  harmless  formation. 

On  the  second  alternative,  how  did  the  elongated  larynx 
itself  arise,  seeing  that  if  its  development  lagged  behind 
that  of  the  maternal  structure,  the  young  primeval  kanga- 
roo must  be  choked ;  while,  without  the  injecting  power  in 
the  mother,  it  must  be  starved?  The  struggle  by  the  sole 
action  of  which  such  a  form  was  developed  must  indeed 
have  been  severe ! 

The  sea-urchins  (Echinus)  present  us  also  with  structures 
the  origin  of  which  it  seems  impossible  to  explain  by  the 


56 


THE   GENESIS   OF  SPECIES. 


[Chap. 


action  of  "  Natural  Selection  "  only.  These  lowly  animals 
belong  to  that  group  of  the  star-lish  class  (Echinodermata), 
the  species  of  which  possess  generally  spheroidal  bodies, 
built   up  of  multitudinous  calcareous  plates,  and  constitute 


AN   ECHINUS,   OS  SE^-UECIIIN. 

(Tho  spines  removed  from  one-half.) 


the  order  Echinoidea.  They  are  also  popularly  known  as 
sea-eggs.  Utterly  devoid  of  limbs,  the  locomotion  of  these 
creatures  is  efTectcd  b}'  means  of  rows  of  smidl  tubular 
suckers  (which  protrude  through  poies  in  the  calcareous 
plates),  and  by  movable  spines  scattered  over  the  body. 

Besides  these  spines  and  suckers  there  are  certain  very 
peculiar  structures,  termed  "  Pedicellari;\i."  Each  of  these 
consists  of  a  long  slender  stalk,  ending  in  tliree  short  limbs 
— or  rather  jaws — the  whole  supported  by  a  delicate  inter- 
nal skeleton.  The  three  limbs  (or  jaws),  which  start  from 
a  common  point  at  the  cncj  of  the  stalk,  are  in  the  constant 
habit  of  opening  and  closing  together  again  with  a  snn])- 
ping  action,  while  the  stalk  itself  sways  about.  The  utility 
of  these  appendages  is,  even  now,  problematical.  It  ma}' 
be  that  they  remove  from  the  surface  of  tlie  animal's  body 
foreign  substances  which  would   be  prejudicial  to   it,  and 


IL] 


INCIPIENT   STRUCTURES. 


67 


"•-■V/ 


wliicli  it  cannot  otherwise   got  rid  of.     But  granting  this, 
^vh;vt  would  ])e  the  utiHty  of  the  first  rudi^ 
tnentarii  he(/innings  of  such   structures,  and 
how  coukl  such  incipient  buddings  have  ever 
preserved  the  hfe  of  a  single  Echinus  ?     It  is 
true  that  on   Darwinian   princijdes  the  ances- 
tral form  from  whi<;h  tlie  sea-urchin  developed 
was    dillerent,    and    must   not    be    conceived 
merely  as  an  Echinus  devoid  of  pedicellaria3 ; 
but   this   makes   the  dillicvdty  none  the  less. 
It    is    equally  hard  to  imagine   that  the  first 
rudiments  of  such  structures  could  have  been 
useful  to  nnij  animal  from  which  the  PJchinus      [i 
miirht   have    been    derived.       Moreover,    not      st'  , 
oven   the  sudden,  development  of  the  snaj) 
ping  action  could  have  been  beneficial  with- 
out the  freely  movable*  stalk,   nor   could  the 
latter  have  been   efficient  without  the  snap- 
ping jaws,  yet   no   minute   merely  indefinite 
variations  could   simultaneously  evolve  these 
complex  coordinations  of  structure;  to  denv 
this  seems  to  do  no  less  than  to  afifirm  a  start- 
ling paradox. 

Mr.  Darwin  explains  the  appearance  of 
some  structures,  the  utilitv  of  which  is  not 
apparent,  by  the  existence  of  certain  "  laws 
of  correlation."  Wy  these  he  means  that  certain  parts 
or  organs  of  the  body  are  so  related  to  other  organs  or 
parts,  that  when  the  first  are  modified  by  the  action  of 
"  Natural  Selection,"  or  what  not,  the  second  are  simul- 
taneously affected,  and  increase  proportionally  or  possibly 
so  decrease.  Examples  of  such  are  the  hair  and  teeth 
in  the  naked  Turkish  dog,  the  general  deafness  of  while 
cats  with  blue  eyes,  the  relation  between  the  presence  of 
more  or  less  down  on  young  birds  when  first  hatched,  and 


PEmrEIXARt.R. 

(Iinnjrnsfly 
enlarged.) 


58  THE   GENESIS   OF  SrECIES.  [Chap. 

the  future  color  of  llieir  plumage,"  with  many  others.  But 
the  idea  that  the  modilication  of  any  internal  or  external 
part  of  the  body  of  an  Echinus  carries  with  it  the  effect  of 
producing  elongated,  flexible,  triradiate,  snapping  processes, 
is,  to  say  the  very  least,  fully  as  obscure  and  mysterious  as 
what  is  here  contended  for,  viz.,  the  ellicient  presence  of  an 
unknown  internal  natural  law  or  laws  conditioning  the  evo- 
lution of  new  specific  forms  from  preceding  ones,  modified 
by  the  action  of  surrounding  conditions,  by  "  Natural  Se- 
lection," and  by  other  controlling  influences. 

The  same  difficulty  seems  to  present  itself  in*  other  ex- 
amples of  exceptional  structure  and  action.  In  the  same 
Echinus,  as  in  many  .allied  forms,  and  also  in  some  more  or 
less  remote  ones,  a  very  peculiar  mode  of  development 
exists.  The  adult  is  not  formed  from  the  egg  directly,  but 
the  egg  gives  rise  to  a  creature  which  swims  freely  about, 
feeds,  and  is  even  somewhat  complexly  organized.  Soon  a 
small  lump  appears  on  one  side  of  its  stomach  ;  this  en- 
larges, and,  having  established  a  communication  with  the 
exterior,  envelops  and  appropriates  the  creature's  stomach, 
with  which  it  swims  away  and  develops  into  tlie  complete 
adult  form,  while  the  dispossessed  individual  perishes. 

Again,  certain  flies  present  a  mode  of  develoi)ment 
equally  bizarre,  though  quite  different.  In  these  flies,  the 
grul)  is,  as  usual,  produced  from  the  ovum,  but  this  grub, 
instead  of  growing  up  into  the  adult  in  the  ordinary  way, 
undergoes  a  sort  of  liquefaction  of  a  great  part  of  its  bodj', 
while  certain  patches  of  formative  tissue,  which  are  attached 
to  the  ramifying  air-tubes,  or  tracheaj  (and  which  patches 
bear  the  name  of  "imaginal  disks"),  give  rise  to  the  legs, 
wings,  eyes,  etc.,  respectively ;  and  these  severally-formed 
parts  grow  together,  and  build  up  the  head  and  body  by 
their  mutual  approximation.  Such  a  process  is  unknown 
outside   the  class  of  insects,  and  inside  that  class  it  is  only 

2i  "  Origin  of  Species,"  5tli  edit.,  1869,  p.  179. 


II.]  INCIPIENT  STRUCTURES.  59 

known  in  a  few  of  the  two-winged  flies.  Now,  how  "  Nat- 
ural Selection,"  or  any  "  laws  of  correlation,"  can  account 
for  the  gradual  development  of  such  an  exceptional  process 
of  development — so  extremely  divergent  from  that  of  other 
insects — seems  nothing  less  than  inconceivable.  Mr.  Dar- 
win himself  ^^  gives  an  account  of  a  very  peculiar  and  ab- 
normal mode  of  development  of  a  certain  beetle,  the  sitaris, 
as  described  by  M.  Fabre.  This  insect,  instead  of  at  first 
appearing  in  its  grub  stage,  and  then,  after  a  time,  putting 
on  the  adult  form,  is  at  first  active  and  furnished  with  six 
legs,  two  long  antennfe,  and  four  eyes.  Hatched  in  the 
nests  of  bees,  it  at  first  attaches  itself  to  one  of  the  males, 
and  then  crawls,  when  the  opportunity  offers,  upon  a  female 
bee.  When  the  female  bee  lays  her  eggs,  the  young  sitaris 
springs  upon  them  and  devours  them.  Then,  losing  its 
eyes,  legs,  and  antennne,  and  becoming  rudimentary,  it 
sinks  into  an  ordinary  grub-like  form,  and  feeds  on  honey, 
ultimately  undergoing  another  transformation,  reacquiring 
its  legs,  etc.,  and  emerging  a  perfect  beetle !  That  such  a 
process  should  have  arisen  by  the  accumulation  of  minute 
accidental  variations  in  structure  and  habit,  appears  to  many 
minds,  quite  competent  to  form  an  opinion  on  the  subject, 
absolutely  incredible. 

It  may  be  objected,  perhaps,  that  these  difhculties  are 
difficulties  of  ignorance — that  we  caimot  explain  them  be- 
cause we  do  not  know  enough  of  the  animals.  But  it  is 
here  contended  that  this  is  not  the  case ;  it  is  not  that  we 
merel}'  fail  to  see  how  "  Natural  Selection  "  acted,  but  that 
there  is  a  positive  incompatibility  between  the  cause  as- 
signed and  the  results.  It  will  be  stated  shortly  what  won- 
derful instances  of  coordination  and  of  unexpected  utility 
Mr.  Darwin  has  discovered  in  orchids.  The  discoveries  are 
not  disputed  or  undervalued,  but  the  explanation  of  their 
origin  is  deemed  thoroughly  unsatisfactory — utterly  insuf- 

23  "  Origin  of  Species,"  5th  edit.,  p.  532. 


60  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

ficient  to  explain  the  incipient,  infinitesimal  beginnings  of 
structures  which  are  of  utility  only  when  they  arc  consider- 
ably developed. 

Let  us  consider  the  mammary  gland,  or  breast.  Is  it 
conceivable  that  the  young  of  any  animal  was  ever  saved 
from  destruction  by  accidentally  sucking  a  drop  of  scarcely 
nutritious  lluid  from  an  accidentally  hypertrophied  cutaneous 
gland  of  its  mother?  And,  even  if  one  was  so,  what  chance 
was  there  of  the  perpetuation  of  such  a  variation  ?  On  the 
hypothesis  of  "  Natural  Selection"  itself,  we  must  assume 
that  up  to  that  time  the  race  had  been  well  adapted  to  the 
surrounding  conditions ;  the  temporary  and  accidental  trial 
and  change  of  conditions,  which  caused  the  so-sucking  young 
one  to  be  the  "fittest  to  survive"  under  the  supposed  cir- 
cumstances, would  soon  cease  to  act,  and  then  the  i)rogeny 
of  the  mother,  with  the  accidentally  hypertrophied,  seba- 
ceous glands,  would  have  no  tendency  to  survive  the  far 
outnumbering  descendants  of  the  normal  ancestral  form. 
If,  on  the  other  hand,  we  assume  the  change  of  conditions 
not  to  have  been  temporary  but  permanent,  and  also  assume 
that  this  permanent  change  of  conditions  was  accidentally 
synchionous  with  the  change  of  structure,  we  have  a  coin- 
cidence of  very  remote  probability  indeed.  But  if,  again, 
we  accept  the  presence  of  some  harmonizing  law  simulta- 
neously determining  the  two  changes,  or  connecting  the 
second  with  the  first  by  causation,  then,  of  course,  we  re- 
move the  accidental  character  of  the  coincidence. 

Again,  how  explain  the  external  position  of  the  male 
sexual  glands  in  certain  mammals?  The  utility  of  the 
modification,  when  accomplished,  is  problematical  enough, 
and  no  less  so  the  incipient  stages  of  the  descent. 

As  was  said  in  the  first  chapter,  Mr.  Darwin  explains 
the  brilliant  plumage  of  the  peacock  or  the  humming-bird 
by  the  action  of  sexual  selection :  the  more  and  more  bril- 
liant males  being  selected  by  the  females  (which  are  thus 


II.]  INCIPIENT   STRUCTURES.  61 

attracted)  to  become  the  fathers  of  the  next  generation,  to 
■\vhicli  generation  they  tend  to  communicate  tlieir  ovm 
bright  nuptial  vesture.  But  there  are  peculiarities  of  color 
and  of  form  which  it  is  exceedingly  diflicult  to  account  for 
by  any  such  action.  Thus,  among  apes,  the  female  is  no- 
toriously weaker,  and  is  armed  with  much  less  powerful 
canine  tusks  than  the  male.  Wlien  we  consider  wliat  is 
known  of  the  emotional  nature  of  these  animals,  and  the 
periodicity  of  its  intensification,  it  is  hardly  credible  that  a 
female  would  often  risk  life  or  limb  through  her  admiration 
of  a  trilling  shade  of  color,  or  an  infinitesimnlly  greater 
though  irresistibly  fascinating  degree  of  wartiness."* 

Yet  the  males  of  some  kinds  of  ape  are  adorned  with 
quite  exceptionally  brilliant  local  decoration,  and  the  male 
orang  is  provided  with  remarkable,  projecting,  warty  lumps 
of  skin  upon  the  cheeks.  As  we  have  said,  the  weaker 
female  can  hardly  be  supposed  to  have  developed  these  by 
persevering  and  long-continued  selection,  nor  can  they  be 
thought  to  tend  to  the  preservation  of  the  individual.  On 
the  contrary,  the  presence  of  this  enlarged  appendage 
must  occasion  a  slight  increase  ia  the  need  of  nutriment, 
and  in  so  far  must  be  a  detriment,  although  its  detrimental 
effect  would  not  be  worth  speaking  of  except  in  relation  to 
"  Darwinism,"  according  to  which,  "  selection  "  has  acted 
through  unimaginable  ages,  and  has  ever  tended  to  sup- 
press any  useless  development  by  the  struggle  for  life.' 


«» 


'*  Mr.  A.  D.  Bartlctt,  of  the  Zoological  Society,  informs  inc  that  at 
these  periods  female  apes  admit  with  perfect  readiness  the  access  of  any 
males  of  different  species.  To  be  sure  this  is  in  confinement;  but  the 
fact  is,  I  think,  quite  conclusive  against  any  such  sexual  Rclcction  in  a 
state  of  nature  as  would  account  for  the  local  coloration  referred  to. 

"  Mr.  Darwin,  in  the  last  (fifth)  edition  of  "Natural  Selection,"  1809, 
p.  102,  admits  that  all  sexual  dilTerenees  arc  not  to  be  attributed  to  the 
agency  of  sexual  Selection,  mentioning  the  wattle  of  carrier-pigeons,  tvift 
of  turkey-cock,  etc.  These  characters,  however,  seem  less  inexplicable 
by  sexual  selection  than  those  given  in  the  text. 


02 


THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES. 


[CllAP. 


In  poisonous  serpents,  also,  we  have  structures  which, 
at  all  events,  at  first  sight,  seem  positively  hurtful  to  those 
reptiles.  Such  are  the  rattle  of  the  rattlesnake,  and  the 
expanding  neck  of  the  cobra,  the  former  seeming  to  warn 
the  ear  of  the  intended  victim,  as  the  latter  warns  the  eye. 
It  is  true  we  cannot  perhaps  demonstrate   that  the  victims 


BATTLESNAKE. 


are  alarmed  and  warned,  but, on  Darwinian  principles,  they 
certainly  ought  to  be  so.  For  the  rashest  and  most  incau- 
tious of  the  animals  preyed  on  would  always  tend  to  full 
victims,  and  the  existinof  individuals  beinjx  the  lonc-dc-- 
sccnded  progeny  of  the  timid  and  cautious,  ouglit  to  have 
an  inherited  tendency  to  distrust,  among  other  things,  both 


II.] 


INCIPIENT   STRUCTURES. 


63 


"  rattling  "  and  "  expanding  "  snakes.  As  to  any  power 
of  fascination  exercised  by  means  of  these  actions,  the 
most  distinguished  naturalists,  certainly  the  most  distin- 
guished erpetologists,  entirely  deny  it,  and  it  is  opposed 
to  the  careful  observations  of  those  known  to  us.'" 


COBRA. 

(^Copied,  by  permission,  from  Sir  Andrew  Smith's  ^'Reptiles  of  SouVJ" Africa.^') 

The  mode  of  formation  of  both  the  eye  and  the  ear  of 
the  highest  animals  is  such  that,  if  it  is  (as  most  Darwini- 
ans assert  processes  of  development  to  be)  a  record  of  the 
actual  steps  by  which  such  structures  were  first  evolved  in 
antecedent   forms,  it   almost  amounts   to  a    demonstration 

'^  I  am  again  indebted  to  the  kindness  of  ]^Ir.  A.  D.  Rartlctt,  among 
others.     That  gentleman  informs  me  that,  so  far  from  any  mental  emo- 
tion being  produced  in  ral)bits  by  the  presence  and  movements  of  snakes,  , 
he  has  actually  seen  a  male  and  female  rabbit  satisfy  the  sexual  instinct 
i  \  that  presence,  a  rabbit  being  seized  by  a  snake  when  in  coUu. 


64  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [CnAi-. 

that  those  steps  were  never  i:)ro{luced  by  "  Natural  Selec- 
tion." 

The  eye  is  formed  by  a  simultaneous  and  corresponding" 
ingrowth  of  one  part  and  outgrowth  of  another.  The  skin 
in  front  of  the  future  eye  becomes  depressed,  the  depres- 
sion increases  and  assumes  the  form  of  a  sac,  ^vhich 
changes  into  tlie  aqueous  humor  and  lens.  An  outgrowth 
of  brain-substance,  on  the  other  hand,  forms  the  retina, 
while  a  third  process  is  a  lateral  ingrowth  of  connective 
tissue,  which  afterward  changes  into  the  vitreous  humor  of 
the  eye. 

The  internal  ear  is  formed  by  an  involution  of  the  in- 
tegument, and  not  by  an  outgrowth  of  the  brain.  But  tis- 
sue, in  connection  with  it,  becomes  in  part  changed,  thus 
forming  the  auditory  nerve,  whicli  places  the  tegumentary 
sac  in  direct  communication  with  the  brain  itself. 

Now,  these  complex  and  simultaneous  coordinations 
could  never  have  been  produced  by  infniitesimal  begin- 
nings, since,  until  so  far  developed  as  to  efl'ect  the  requi- 
site junctions,  they  are  useless.  But  the  eye  and  ear  when 
fully  developed  present  conditions  which  are  hopelessly  dif- 
ficult to  reconcile  with  the  mere  action  of  "  Natural  Selec- 
tion." The  dilhculties  witli  regard  to  the  eye  had  ])een 
well  put  by  Mr.  ]\Iur])Iiy,  especially  that  of  the  concordant 
result  of  visual  development  springing  from  diiferent  start- 
ing-points and  continued  on  by  independent  roads. 

He  says,^'  speaking  of  the  beautiful  structure  of  the 
perfect  eye,  "  The  higher  the  organization,  whether  of  an 
entire  organism  or  of  a  single  organ,  the  greater  is  the 
number  of  the  parts  that  cooperate,  and  the  more  perfect 
is  their  cooperation ;  and  consequently,  the  more  necessity 
there  is  for  corresj)oiHling  variations  to  take  j)lace  in  all  the 
cooperating  parts  at  once,  and  the  more  useless  will  be  any 
variation  whatever  unless  it  is  accompanied   by  corresjioud- 

«^  *'  Habit  and  Intelligence,"  vol.  i.,  p.  319. 


II.]  INCiriENT   STRUCTURES.  (55 

ing  variations  in  tlie  cooperating  parts  ;  while  it  is  obvious 
that  the  greater  the  number  of  variations  whicli  are  needed 
in  order  to  efToct  an  improvement,  the  less  will  be  the 
probability  of  their  all  occurring  at  once.  It  is  no  reply  to 
this  to  sa}',  what  is  no  doubt  abstractedly  true,  that  what- 
ever is  possible  becomes  probable,  if  only  time  enough  be 
allowed.  There  are  improbabilities  so  great  that  the  com- 
mon-sense of  mankind  treats  them  as  impossibilities.  It 
is  not,  for  instance,  in  the  strictest  sense  of  the  w^ord,  im- 
jiossible  that  a  poem  and  a  mathematical  proposition  should 
he  obtained  hy  the  process  of  shaking  letters  out  of  a  box ; 
but  it  is  improbable  to  a  degree  that  cannot  be  distin- 
guished from  impossibility;  and  the  improbability 'of  ob- 
t;iini!ig  an  improvement  in  an  organ  by  means  of  several 
spontaneous  variations,  all  occurring  together,  is  an  im- 
probability of  the  same  kind.  If  we  suppose  that  any 
single  variation  occurs  on  the  average  once  in  m  times,  the 
probability  of  that  variation  occurring  in  any  individual 
will  be — 

and  suppose  that  x  variations  must  concur  in  order  to  make 
an  improvement,  then  the  probability  of  the  necessary  vari- 
ations all  occurring  together  will  be 

m*. 

Now  suppose,  what  I  think  a  moderate  proposition,  that 
the  value  of  7n  is  1,000,  and  the  value  of  x  is  10,  then — 

771'  ~  1000^"  ~  10'°* 

A  number  about  ten  thousand  times  as  great  as  the  number 
of  waves  of  light  that  have  fallen  on  the  earth  since  histori- 
cal time  began.  And  it  is  to  be  further  observed,  that  no 
improvement  will  give  its  possessor  a  certainty  of  surviving 


QQ  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Ciup 

and  leaving  offspring,  but  only  an  extra  chance^  the  value 
of  which  it  is  quite  impossible  to  estimate."  This  difliculty 
is,  as  Mr.  Murpliy  points  out,  greatly  intensified  by  the  un- 
doubted fact  that  the  wonderfully  complex  structure  has 
been  arrived  at  quite  independently  in  beasts  on  the  one 
hand  and  in  cuttle-fishes  on  the  other ;  while  creatures  of 
the  insect  and  crab  division  present  us  with  a  third  and 
quite  separately  developed  complexity. 

As  to  the  ear,  it  would  take  up  too  much  space  to  de- 
scribe its  internal  structure ; "  it  must  suffice  to  say  that  in 
its  interior  there  is  an  immense  series  of  minute  rod-like 
bodies,  termed  Jibres  of  Corti^  having  the  ap])earance  of  a 
key-board,  and  each  fibre  being  connected  with  a  filament 
of  the  auditory  nerve,  these  nerves  being  like  strings  to  be 
struck  by  the  keys,  i.  c.,  by  the  fibres  of  Corti.  Moreover, 
this  apparatus  is  supposed  to  be  a  key -board  in  function  as 
well  as  in  appearance,  the  vibration  of  each  one  fibre  giving 
rise,  it  is  believed,  to  the  sensation  of  one  particular  tone, 
and  combinations  of  such  vibrations  producing  chords.  It 
is  by  the  action  of  this  complex  organ,  then,  that  all  the 
wonderful  intricacy  and  beauty  of  Beethoven  and  Mozart 
come,  most  probably,  to  be  perceived  and  appreciated. 

Now,  it  can  hardly  be  contended  that  the  preservation 
of  any  race  of  men  in  the  struggle  for  life  ever  depended 
on  such  an  extreme  delicacy  and  refinement  of  the  internal 
ear — a  perfection  only  exercised  in  the  enjoyment  and  ap- 
preciation of  the  most  perfect  musical  performances.  How, 
then,  could  either  the  minute  incipient  stages,  or  the  final 
perfecting  touches  of  this  admirable  structure,  have  been 
brought  about  by  vague,  aimless,  and  indefinite  variations 
in  all  conceivable  directions  of  an  organ,  suitable  to  en- 
able the  rudest  savage  to  minister  to  his  necessities,  but  no 
more  ? 

28  The  reader  may  consult  Huxley's  "  Lessons  in  Elementary  Physi- 
ology," p.  201. 


II.]  INCIPIENT  STRUCTURES.  67 

Mr.  Wallace  ''  makes  an  analogous  remark  -vvith  regard 
to  the  organ  of  voice  in  man — the  human  larynx.  He  says 
of  singing:  "The  habits  of  savages  give  no  indication  of 
how  this  faculty  could  have  been  developed  by  Natural  Se- 
lection, because  it  is  never  required  or  used  by  them.  The 
singing  of  savages  is  a  more  or  less  monotonous  howling, 
and  the  females  seldom  sing  at  all.  Savages  certainly  never 
choose  their  wives  for  fine  voices,  but  for  rude  health,  and 
strength,  and  phj^sical  beauty.  Sexual  selection  could  not 
therefore  have  developed  this  wonderful  power,  which  only 
comes  into  play  among  civilized  people." 

Reverting  once  more  to  beauty  of  form  and  color,  there 
is  one  manifestation  of  it  for  which  no  one  can  pretend  that 
sexual  selection  can  possibly  account.  The  instance  re- 
ferred to  is  that  presented  by  bivalve  shell-fish."  Here  we 
meet  with  charming  tints  and  elegant  forms  and  markings 
of  no  direct  use  to  their  possessors  "  in  the  struggle  for  life, 
and  of  no  indirect  utility  as  regards  sexual  selection,  for 
fertilization  takes  place  by  the  mere  action  of  currents  of 
water,  and  the  least  beautiful  individual  has  fully  as  good 
a  chance  of  becoming  a  parent  as  has  the  one  which  is  the 
most  favored  in  beauty  of  form  and  color. 

Again,  the  peculiar  outline  and  coloration  of  certain 
orchids — notably  of  our  own  bee,  fly,  and  spider  orchids — 
seem  hardly  explicable  by  any  action  of  "  Natural  Selec- 
tion." Mr.  Darwin  says  very  little  on  this  singular  resem- 
blance of  flowers  to  insects,  and  what  he  does  say  seems 
hardly  to  be   what  an  advocate  of  "  Natural  Selection " 

29  "  Natural  Selection,"  p.  350. 

2°  Bivalve  shell-fish  arc  creatures  belonginfi;  to  the  oyster,  scallop,  and 
cockle  group,  i.  c.,  to  the  class  Ijamcllibranchiata. 

3'  The  attempt  has  been  made  to  explain  these  facts  as  owing  to 
"manner  and  symmetry  of  growth,  and  to  color  being  incidental  on  the 
chemical  nature  of  the  constituents  of  the  shell."  But  surely  beauty 
depends  on  some  such  matters  in  all  cases ! 


G8  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

would  require.  Surely,  for  minute  accidental  indefinite  va- 
riations to  have  built  up  such  a  striking  resemblance  to  in- 
sects, we  ought  to  find  that  the  preservation  of  the  plant, 
or  the  perpetuation  of  its  race,  depends  almost  constantly 
on  relations  between  bees,  spidei-s,  and  flies  respectively 
and  tlie  bee,  s})ider,  and  lly  orchids."  This  j)rocess  must 
liave  continued  for  ages  constantly  and  i)crscveringly,  and 
yet  Avhat  is  tlie  fact?  Mr.  Darwin  tells  us,  in  his  work  on 
the  "  Fertilization  of  Orchids,"  that  neither  the  spider  nor 
the  fly  orchids  are  nnich  visited  by  insects,  while,  with  re- 
gard to  the  bee  orchid,  he  says,  "  1  have  never  seen  an  in- 
sect visit  these  flowers."  And  he  shows  how  this  species 
is  even  wonderfully  and  specially  modified  to  efl'ect  self- 
fertilization. 

In  the  work  just  referred  to  Mr.  Darwin  gives  a  series 
of  the  most  wonderful  and  minute  contrivances  by  which 
the  visits  of  insects  are  utilized  for  the  fertilization  of  orchids 
— structures  so  wonderful  that  nothing  could  well  be  more 
so,  except  the  attribution  of  their  origin  to  minute,  fortui- 
tous, and  indefinite  variation. 

The  instances  are  too  numerous  and  too  long  to  quote, 
but  in  his  "  Origin  of  Species  "  ^^  he  describes  two  which 
must  not  be  passed  over.  In  one  (Cori/anthes)  the  orchid 
has  its  lower  lip  enlarged  into  a  bucket,  above  which  stand 
two  water-secreting  horns.  These  latter  replenish  the  bucket 
from  which,  when  half-filled,  the  water  overflows  by  a  spout 
on  one  side.  Bees  visiting  the  flower  fall  into  the  bucket 
and  crawl  out  at  the  spout.  By  the  peculiar  arrangement 
of  the  partii  of  the  flower,  the  first  bee  which  does  so  car- 

''  It.  has  been  suf^^estcd  in  opposition  to  what  is  here  said,  that  tlicrc 
is  no  leal  reseiubhmee,  but  that  tlie  likeness  is  ^'^  fanciful  I  "  Tiie  deniiil, 
however,  of  the  fact  of  a  resemblance  which  has  struck  so  ujany  ob- 
servers, reminds  one  of  the  French  philosoj)her'8  estimate  of  facts  hostile 
to  his  theory — "  Tunt  pis  pour  les  fails  !  " 

33  Fifth  edition,  p.  236. 


II.]  INCIPIENT  STRUCTURES.  G9 

ricsaway  tlie  pollen-mass  glued  to  his  back,  and  then  when 
he  has  his  next  involuntary  bath  in  another  flower,  as  he 
crawls  out  the  pollen-mass  attached  to  him  comes  in  con- 
tact with  the  stigma  of  that  second  flower  and  fertilizes  it. 
In  the  other  example  [Catasetuni)^  when  a  bee  gnaws  a 
certain  part  of  the  flower,  he  inevitably  touches  a  long  deli- 
cate projection,  which  Mr.  Darwin  calls  the  antenna.  "  This 
antenna  transmits  a  vibration  to  a  certain  membrane,  which 
is  instantly  ruptured ;  this  sets  free  a  sj^ring  by  which  the 
pollen-mass  is  shot  forth  like  an  arrow  in  the  right  direc- 
tion, and  adheres  by  its  viscid  extremity  to  the  back  of  the 
bee  I " 

Another  difliculty,  and  one  of  some  importance,  is  pre- 
Rcntcd  by  tliosc  connnunitics  of  ants  which  have  not  only  a 
population  of  sterile  females,  or  workers,  but  two  distinct 
and  very  difl'erent  castes  of  such.  Mr.  Darwin  believes  that 
he  has  got  over  this  difficulty  by  having  found  individuals 
intermediate  in  form  and  structure  "  between  the  two  work- 
ing castes  ;  others  may  think  that  we  have  in  this  belief 
of  Mr.  Darwin,  an  example  of  the  unconscious  action  of  vo- 
lition upon  credence.  A  vast  number  of  difficulties  similar 
to  those  which  have  been  mentioned  might  easily  be  cited 
— those  given,  however,  may  sufiico. 

There  remains,  however,  to  be  noticed  a  very  important 
consideration,  wdiich  was  brought  forward  in  the  North 
British  Review  for  June,  18G7,  p.  286,  namely,  the  neces- 
sity for  the  simultaneous  modification  of  many  individuals. 
This  consideration  seems  to  have  escaped  Mr.  Darwin,  for 
at  p.  104  of  his  last  (fifth)  edition  of  "  Natural  Selection," 
he  admits,  with  great  candor,  that  until  reading  this  arti- 

3*  Mr.  Smith,  of  the  Entomological  department  of  the  British  Mu^eum, 
hag  kindly  informed  me  that  the  individuals  intermediate  in  structure  are 
very  few  in  number — not  more  than  five  per  cent. — compared  with  the 
number  of  distinctly  diircrentiated  individuals.  Besides,  in  the  Brazilian 
kinds  these  intonnediato  forms  are  wanting. 


70  TnE  GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Ciup. 

cle  he  did  not  "  appreciate  how  rarely  single  variations, 
whether  slight  or  strongly  marked,  could  be  perpetuated." 

The  N^orth  Drltish  Ileview  (speaking  of  the  supposition 
that  a  species  is  changed  by  the  survival  of  a  few  individu- 
als in  a  century  througii  a  similar  and  favorable  variation) 
says :  "  It  is  very  diflicult  to  see  how  this  can  be  accom- 
plished, even  when  the  variation  is  eminently  favorable  in- 
deed ;  and  still  more  difiicult  when  the  advantage  gained  is 
very,  slight,  as  must  generally  be  the  case.     The  advantage, 
whatever   it  may  be,  is  utterly   out-balanced  by  numerical 
inferiority.     A   million    creatures   are   born ;  ten  thousand 
survive  to  produce  offspring.     One  of  the  million  has  twice 
as  good  a  chance  as  any  other  of  surviving  ;  but  the  chances 
are  fifty  to  one  against  the  gifted  individuals  being  one  of 
the  hundred  survivors.     No  doubt  the  chances  are  twice  as 
great  against  any  one  other  individual,  but  this  does  not 
prevent  their  being  enormously  in  favor  of  some  average  in- 
dividual.    However  sliglit  the  advantage  may   be,   if  it  is 
shared  by  half  the  individuals  produced,  it  will  probably  be 
present  in  at  least  fifty-one  of  the  survivors,  and  in  a  larger 
proportion  of  their  offspring  ;  but  the  chances  are  against 
tlie  preservation  ol  any  one  'sport'  (i.  e.,  sudden,  marked 
variation)  in  a  numerous  tribe.     The -vague  use  of  an  im- 
perfectly-understood doctrine  of  chance  has  led  Darwinian 
supporters,   first,   to   confuse    the  two   cases   above   distin- 
guished ;  and,  secondly,  to  imagine  that  a  very  slight  bal- 
ance in  favor  of  some  individual  sport  must  lead  to  its  per- 
petuation.    All  that  can  be  said  is  that  in  the  above  ex- 
ample the  favcrred  sport  would  be  preserved  once  in  fifty 
times.     Let  us  consider  what  will  be  its  infiuence  on  the 
main  stock  when  preserved.     It  will  breed  and  have  a  pro- 
g(^ny  of  say  100 ;  now  this  progeny  will,  on  the  whole,  be 
intermediate  between  the  average  individual  and  the  sport. 
The  odds  in  favor  of  one  of  this  generation  of  the  new  breed 
will  be,  say  one  and  a  half  to  one,  as  compared  with  the 


rff 


II.J  INCIPIENT   STRUCTURES.  7X 

average  individual;  the  odds  in  their  favor  will,  tlierefore, 
be    less    than    that  of  their  parents;  but  owing  to  their 
greater  number,  the  chances  are  that  about  one  and  a  half 
of  them   would   survive.     Unless  these   breed  together,  a 
most  improbable  event,  their  progeny  would  again  approach 
the  average  individual ;  there  would  be  150  of  them,  and 
tlieir  superiority  would  be,  say  in  the  ratio  of  one  in  a 
quarter  to  one ;  the  probability  would  now  be  that  nearly 
two  of  them  would  survive,  and  have  200  children,  with  an 
eiglith  superiority.     Rather  more  than  two  of  these  would 
survive;  but   the   superiority   would   again   dwindle,   until 
after  a  few  generations  it  would  no  longer  be  observed,  and 
would  count  for  no  more  in  the  struggle  for  life  than  any 
of  the  hundred  trifling  advantages  which  occur  in  the  ordi- 
nary organs.     An   illustration   will   bring  this    conception 
home.     Suppose  a  white  man  to  have  been  wrecked  on  an 
island  inhabited  by  negroes,  and  to  have  established  him- 
self in  friendly  relations  with  a  powerful  tribe,  whose  cus- 
toms he  has  learned.     Suppose  him  to  possess  the  physical 
strength,  energy,  and  ability  of  a  dominant  white  race,  and 
let  the  food  and  climate  of  the  island  suit  his  constitution  ; 
grant  him  every  advantage  which  we  can  conceive  a  white 
to  possess  over  the  native ;  concede  that  in  the  struggle  for 
existence  his  chance  of  a  long  life  will  be  much  superior  to 
that  of  the  native   chiefs  ;  yet  from  all  these  admissions, 
there  does  not  follow  the  conclusion  that,  after  a  limited  or 
unlimited  number  of  generations,  the  inhabitants  of  the  isl- 
and will  be  white.     Our  shipwrecked  hero  would  probably 
become  king ;  he  would   kill  a  great  many  blacks   in  the 
struggle  for  existence ;  he  would  have  a  great  many  wives 
and  children."  ..."  In  the  first  generation  there  will  be 
some  dozens  of  intelligent  young  mulattoes,  much  superior 
in  average  intelligence  to  the  negroes.     We  might  expect 
the  throne  for  some  generations  to  be  occupied  by  a  more 
or  less  yellow  king ;  but  can  any  one  believe  that  the  whole 


72  THE   GENESIS   OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

island  will  gradually  acquire  a  Avliite,  or  even  a  yellow,  pop- 
ulation?" 

"  Darwin  says  that  in  the  struggle  for  life  a  grain  may 
turn  the  balance  in  favor  of  u  given  structure,  which  will  tlien 
be  preserved.  But  one  of  the  weiglits  in  the  scale  of  Nature 
is  due  to  the  number  of  a  given  tribe.  Let  there  be  7,000 
A's  and  7,000  B's,  representing  two  varieties  of  a  given  an- 
imal, and  let  all  the  B's,  in  virtue  of  a  slight  diilcrence  of 
structure,  have  the  better  chance  of  life  by  y^Vo"  part.  We 
must  allow  that  tliere  is  a  sligiit  probability  that  the  de- 
scendants of  B  will  supplant  the  descendants  of  A;  but 
let  there  be  only  7,001  A's  against  7,000  B's  at  first,  and  the 
chances  are  once  more  equal,  while  if  there  be  7,002  A's  to 
start,  the  odds  would  be  laid  on  the  A's.  True,  they  stand 
a  greater  chance  of  being  killed ;  but  then  they  can  better 
aflord  to  be  killed.  The  grain  will  only  turn  the  scales 
when  these  are  very  nicely  balanced,  and  an  advantage  in 
numbers  counts  for  weight,  even  as  an  advantage  in  struct- 
ure. As  the  numbers  of  the  favored  variety  diminish,  so 
must  its  relative  advantages  increase,  if  the  chance  of  its 
existence  is  to  surpass  the  chance  of  its  extinction,  until 
hardly  any  conceivable  advantage  would  enable  the  de- 
scendants of  a  single  pair  to  exterminate  the  descendants 
of  many  thousands  if  they  and  their  descendants  are  su]> 
posed  to  breed  freely  ^vith  the  inferior  variety,  and  so  grad- 
ually lose  their  ascendency." 

Mr.  Darwin  himself  says  of  the  article  quoted :  "  The 
justice  of  these  remarks  cannot,  I  'think,  be  disputed.  If, 
for  instance,  a  bird  of  some  kind  could  procure  its  food  more 
easily  by  having  its  beak  curved,  and  if  one  were  born  Avith 
its  beak  strongly  cuived,  and  which  consequently  flourished, 
nevertheless  there  would  be  a  very  poor  chance  of  this  one 
individual  perpetuating  its  kind  to  the  exclusion  of  the  com- 
mon form."  This  admission  seems  almost  to  amount  to  a 
change  of  front  in  the  face  of  the  enemy  I 


II.]  INCiriENT  STRUCTURES.  73 

Tliesc  remarks  liave  boon  quoted  at  length  bocanse  tlioy 
so  greatly  intensify  the  diflinulties  brought  forward  in  this 
chapter.  If  the  most  favorable  variations  have  to  contend 
vvitli  sucli  diflicultios,  what  must  be  thought  as  to  the  chance 
of  preservation  of  the  slightly-displaced  eye  in  a  sole  or  of 
the  incipient  development  of  baleen  in  a  whale  ? 

SUMMARY   AND    CONCLUSION. 

It  has  been  here  contended  that  a  certain  few  facts,  out 
of  many  which  might  have  been  brought  forward,  are  incon- 
sistent with  the  origination  of  species  by  "  Natural  Selec- 
tion "  only  or  mainly. 

Mr.  Darwin's  theory  requires  miiuito,  ind(^rmite,  fortui- 
tous variations  of  all  parts  in  all  directions,  and  he  insists 
that  the  sole  operation  of  "  Natural  Selection  "  upon  such 
is  suflicient  to  account  for  the  great  majority  of  organic 
forms,  with  their  most  complicated  structures,  intricate 
mutual  adaptations,  and  delicate  adjustments. 

To  this  conception  has  been  opposed  the  difficulties 
presented  by  such  a  structure  as  the  form  of  the  giraffe, 
which  ought  not  to  have  been  the  solitary  structure  it  is  ; 
also  the  minute  beginnings  and  the  last  refinements  of  pro- 
tective mimicry  etiually  difficult  or  rather  impossible  to  ac- 
count for  by  "  Natural  Selection."  Again,  tlie  difiiculty  as 
to  the  heads  of  flat-fishes  has  been  insisted  on,  as  also  the 
origin,  and  at  the  same  time  the  constancy,  of  the  limbs  of 
the  highest  animals.  Reference  has  also  been  made  to 
the  whalebone  of  whales,  and  to  the  impossibility  of  imder- 
standing  its  origin  through  "Natural  Selection"  only;  the 
samoJis  regards  the  infant  kangaroo,  with  its  singular  defi- 
ciency of  power  compensated  for  by  rpaternal  structures  on 
the  one  hand,  to  which  its  own  breathing-organs  bear  direct 
relation  on  the  other.  Again,  the  delicate  and  complex 
pedicellari.'o  of  Echinoderms,  with  a  certain  process  of  dev^el- 
oi)ment  (through  a  secondary  larva)  found  in  that  class, 
4 


74  THE    GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

togellicr  with  certain  otlicr  ex('C})tioii5il  nuules  of  develop- 
ment, have  been  brought  forward.  The  development  of 
color  in  certain  apes,  the  hood  of  the  cobra,  and  the  rattle 
of  the  rattlesnake,  have  also  been  cited.  Again,  dilliculties 
as  to  the  process  of  formation  of  the  eye  and  car,  and  as  to 
the  fully-developed  condition  of  those  comj)lex  organs,  as 
well  as  of  the  voice,  have  been  consideretl.  The  beauty  of 
certain  shell-fish ;  the  wonderful  adaptations  of  structure,  and 
variety  of  form  and  resemblance,  found  in  orchids  ;  together 
with  the  complex  habits  and  social  conditions  of  certain 
ants,  have  been  hastily  passed  in  review.  When  all  these 
complications  are  duly  'weighed  and  considered,  and  when 
it  is  borne  in  mind  how  necessary  it  is  for  the  permanence 
of  a  new  variety  that  'many  individuals  in  each  case  should 
be  simultaneously  modified,  the  cumulative  argument  seems 
irresistible. 

The  author  of  this  book  can  say  that,  though  by  no 
means  disposed  originally  to  dissent  from  the  theory  of 
"Natural  Selection,"  if  only  its  difliculties  could  be  solved, 
he  has  found  each  successive  year  tliat  deeper  consideration 
and  more  careful  examination  have  more  and  more  brouirht 
home  to  him  the  inadequacy  of  Mr.  Darwin's  theory  to  ac- 
count for  the  preservation  and  intensification  of  incipient, 
specific,  and  generic  characters.  That  minute,  fortuitous, 
and  indefinite  variations  could  have  brought  about^  such  sp(;- 
cial  forms  and  modifications  as  have  b(^en  enumerateil  in 
this  chapter,  seems  to  contradict  not  imagination,  but  reason. 

That  either  many  individuals  among  a  spe(;ies  of  butt(.'r- 
fly  should  be  sinmltaneously  j)reserved  through  a  similar 
accidental  and  niiiuite  variation  in  one  definite  direction, 
Avhen  variations  in  many  other  directions  would  also  pre- 
serve ;  or  that  one  or  two  so  varying  shoidd  succeed  in  sup- 
planting the  j)rogeny  of  thousands  of  other  individuals,  and 
that  this  should  by  no  other  cause  be  carried  so  far  as  to 
produce  the  appearance  (as  we  have  before  stated)  of  spots 


ir.J  INCIPIENT   STRUCTURES.  75 

of  fungi,  etc. — arc,  alternatives  of  an  iniprobal)iHty  so  ex- 
treme as  to  be  practically  equal  to  impossibility. 

In  spite  of  all  the  resources  of  a  fertile  imagination,  the 
Darwinian,  pure  and  simple,  is  reduced  to  the  assertion  of 
a  paradox  as  great  as  any  he  opposes.  In  the  place  of  a 
mere  assertion  of  our  ignorance  as  to  the  way  these  phe- 
nomena have  been  produced,  he  brings  forward,  as  their 
explanation,  a  cause  which  it  is  contended  in  this  work  is 
demonstrably  insufficient. 

Of  course  in  this  matter,  as  elsewhere  throughout  Nature, 
we  have  to  do  with  the  operation  of  fixed  and  constant 
natural  laws,  and  the  knowledge  of  these  may  before  long 
])e()blain(Ml  by  human  patience  or  human  genius;  but  there 
is,  it  is  believed,  already  enough  evidence  to  show  that  these 
as  yet  unknown  natural  laws  or  law  will  never  be  resolved 
into  the  action  of  "  Natural  Selection,"  but  will  constitute 
or  exemplify  a  mode  and  condition  of  organic  action  of  which 
the  Darwinian  theory  takes  no  account  whatsoever. 


7G  THE   GKNESIS  OF  SPKCIKS.  '[Chap. 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE      COEXISTENCE     OF     CLOSELY-SIMILAR      STRUCTURES     OF 

DIVERSE    ORIGIN. 

Chances  apninst  Concordant  Vurliitlons. — Examples  of  Discordant  Oiu-s. — ('oncordant 
Variations  not  unlikely  on  a  non-Darwinian  Evolutionary  Hypothesis. — I'Licental 
and  InipLicentjil  Mammals. — IJirds  and  lieptiles. — Indei)endent  Ori{,'in3  of  Similar 
Sense  Organs. — The  Ear. — The  Eye. — Other  Coincidences. — Causes  besides  Natural 
Selection  produco  Concordant  Variations  in  Certain  CJeograiihluil  Ket,'ion8.— ('auses 
besides  Natural  Selection  i)roduco  Concordant  Variations  in  ('erUtin  Zooloj^'icul  and 
IJotauical  Ci-oups. — There  aru  Homologous  Parts  not  geiietlwilly  related. —  Harmony 
la  respect  of  the  Organic  and  Inorganic  "Worlds. — Sumuioiy  and  Conclusion. 

The  theory  of  "  Natural  Selection  "  supposes  that  tlie 
varied  forms  and  structure  of  animals  and  j)lants  have  been 
built  up  merely  hy  indefinite,  fortuitous,*  minute  variations 
in  everj'  part  and  in  all  directions — those  variations  only 
being  j)reserved  which  are  directly  or  indirectly  usefid  to 
tlie  individual  possessing  them,  or  necessarily  correlated 
with  such  useful  variations. 

On  this  theory  the  chances  are  almost  infinitely  great 
against  the  independent,  accidental  occurrence  and  pres- 
ervation of  two  similar  series  of  minute  variations  result- 
ing in  the  independent  development  of  two  closely-similar 
forms.  In  all  cases,  no  doubt  (on  this  same  theory),  sotne 
adaptation  to  habit  or  need  would  gradually  be  evolved, 
but  that  adaptation  would  surely  be  arrived  at  by  dillerent 
roads.     The  organic  world   su])plies  us  with  multitutles  of 

'  By  accidental  variations  Mr.  Darwin  does  not,  of  course,  mean  to 
imply  variatioua  really  due  to  "  chance,"  bai  to  utterly  indctcrmiuate 
antecedents. 


III.J        INDEPENDENT  SIMILARITIES  OF  STRUCTUKE.  77 

exami^les  of  similar  functional  results  being  attained  by  the 
most  diverse  means.  Thus  the  body  is  sustained  in  the 
air  by  birds  and  by  bats.  In  the  first  case  it  is  so  sustained 
by  a  limb  in  wliich  the  bones  of  the  hand  are  excessively 
reduced,  but  which  is  provided  with  immense  outgrowths 
from  the  skin — namely,  the  feathers  of  the  wing.  In  the 
second  case,  however,  the  body  is  sustained  in  the  air  by 
a  limb  in  which  the  bones  of  the  hand  are  enormously  in- 


<^ 


■\VlNO-nONES  OF  PTERODACTYL,   BAT,   ANT>   niRD. 

{Copied^  htj  permission, from  3fr.  Aiidrew  ,Vn7'rai/8  "  Geographical  Distribution 

0/  Mammals^'') 


creased  in  length,  and  so  sustain  a  great  expanse  of  naked 
skin,  which  is  the  flying  membrane  of  the  bat's  wing.  Cer- 
tain fishes  and  certain  reptiles  can  also  flit  and  take  very 
prolonged  jumps  in  the  air.  The  flying-fish,  however, 
takes  these  by  means  of  a  great  elongation  of  the  rays  of 
the  pectoral  fins — parts  Avhich  cannot  be  said  to  be  of  the 
same  nature  as  the  constituents  of  the  wing  of  either  the 
bat  or  the  bird.  The  little  lizard,  which  enjoys  the  formi- 
dable name  of  "flying-dragon,"  flits  by  means  of  a  structure 
altogether  peculiar — namel}',  by  the  liberation  and  great 
elongation  of  some  of  the  ribs  which  support  a  fold  of  skin. 
In  the  extinct  pterodactyls — which  were  truhj  flying  rep- 


78 


THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES. 


[Chap. 


tiles — we  meet  witli  an  approximation  to  the  structure  of 
the  but,  but  in  the  pterodactyl  we  have  only  one  finger 
elongated  in  each  hand :  a  striking  examj)le  of  how  the 
very  same  function  may  be  provided  for  by  a  modilicalion 
similar  in  principle,  yet  surely  manifesting  the  indepen- 
dence of  its  origin.  When  we  go  to  lower  animals,  we  lind 
llight  produced  by  organs,  as  the  wings  of  insects,  which 
are  not  even  modilied  limbs  at  all;  or  we  find   even   the 


SKELETON   OF  THE   FLYING-DBAOON. 

(Sho\\iDg  the  elongated  ribs  which  support  the  flitting  organ.)  ^ 

function  sometimes  subserved  by  quite  artificial  means,  as 
in  the  alirial  spiders,  which  use  their  own  threads  to  float 
with  in  the  air.  In  the  vegetable  kingdom  the  atniosphere 
is  often  made  use  of  for  the  scattering  of  seeds,  by  their 
l)cing  furnished  with  special  structures  of  very  different 
kinds.  The  diverse  modes  by  which  such  seeds  are  dis- 
persed   are   well   expressed    by   Mr.   Darwin.      He   says :  ^ 

••'  "  Origin  of  Species,"  6th  edit.,  p.  235. 


III.J         INDEPENDENT   SIMILARITIES  OF   STRUCTURE. 


79 


"  Seeds  firo  disseminated  by  (heir  minuteness — by  their 
capsule  ])eing'  converted  into  a  light  balloon-Iikc  envelope 
— l)y  being  (imbedded  in  pulp  or  flesh,  formed  of  the  most 
diverse  parts,  and  rendered  nutritious,  as  well  as  conspicu- 
ously colored,  so  as  to  attract  and  be  devoured  by  birds — 
by  having  hooks  and  grapnels  of  many  kinds  and  serrated 
awns,  so  as  to  adhere  to  the  fur  of  quadrupeds — and  by  be- 
ing furnished  with  wings  and  plumes,  as  different  in  shape 
as  elegant  in  structure,  so  as  to  be  wafted  by  every  breeze." 
Again,  if  we  consider  the  poisoning  apparatus  pos- 
sessed by  different  animals,  we  find  in  serpents  a  perfo- 
rated— or,  rather,  very  deeply-channelled — tooth.  In  wasps 
and  bees  the  sting  is  formed  of  modified  parts,  accessory 
in  reproduction.  In  the  scorpion,  we  liave  the  median  ter- 
minal process  of  the  body  specially  organized.  In  the 
spider,  we  have  a  specially-constructed  antenna ;  and  final- 
ly in  the  centipede  a  pair  of  modified  thoracic  limbs. 


A  CENTirEDE. 


It  would  be  easy  to  produce  a  multitude  of  such  in- 
stances of  similar  ends  being  attained  by  dissimilar  means, 
and  it  is  here  contended  that  by  "  the  action  of  Natural 


so  TIIK   (JKNKSIS  OF  SPECIMS.  [Ciiai'. 

Soleclion  "  onhj  it  is  so  iniprohable  as  to  be  practically  im- 
possible for  two  exactly-similar  structures  to  have  ever 
been  iudependently  developed.  It  is  so  because  the  num- 
ber of  possible  variations  is  indefinitely  great,  and  it  is 
therefore  an  indefinitely  great  number  to  one  against  a 
similar  series  of  variations  occurring  and  being  similarly 
preserved  in  any  two  independent  instances. 

The  dilliculty  here  asserted  applies,  however,  only  to 
pure  Darwinism,  \vhich  makes  use  only  of  indirect  modifi- 
cations through  the  survival  of  the  fittest. 

Other  theories  (for  example,  that  of  Mr.  Herbert  Spen- 
cer) admit  the  direct  action  of  conditions  upon  animals  and 
j)lants — in  ways  not  yet  fully  understood — there  being  con- 
ccivcKJ  to  be  at  the  same  time  a  certain  pc^culiar  but  limited 
power  of  response  and  ada})tation  in  each  animal  and  plant 
so  acted  on.  Such  theories  have  not  to  contend  against 
the  difhculty  proposed,  and  it  is  here  urged  that  even  very 
comj)lex  extremely  similar  structures  have  again  and  again 
been  developed  quite  independently  one  of  the  other,  and 
this  because  the  j)rocess  has  taktiu  place  not  by  meri;ly 
haphazard,  indefinite  variations  in  all  directions,  but  by  tlie 
concurrence  of  some  other  and  internal  natural  law  or  laws 
cooperating  with  external  influences  and  with  "  Natural 
Selection"  in  the  evolution  of  organic  forms. 

It  must  never  be  forgotten  that  to  admit  any  sucli  con- 
stant operation  of  any  such  ludvuown  natural  cause  is  to 
deny  the  purely  Darwinian  theory,  which  relies  upon  the 
survival  of  the  fittest  by  means  of  minute  fortuitous  indefi- 
nite variations. 

Anumg  many  other  obligations  which  the  author  has 
to  acknowledge  to  Prof.  Huxley  are,  the  pointing  out  of 
this  very  dilliculty,  and  tlie  calling  his  attention  to  the 
striking  resemblance  between  certain  teeth  of  the  dog  and 
of  the  thylacine  as  one  instance,  and  certain  ornithic  pe- 
culiarities of  pterodactyls  as  another. 


III.]         INDErENDENT   SIMILARITIES   OF   STRUCTURE.  81 

Mjitnmals'  arc  divisible  into  one  great  group,  -which 
comprises  the  immense  majority  of  kinds  termed,  from 
their  mode  of  repTCKhxci'iou,  j>lace7ital  3Iam,7nah^  and  into 
nnoUicr  very  much  smulhT  group  comprising  the  pouched- 
beasts  or  marsupials  (wliich  are  the  kangaroos,  bandicoots, 
phalangers,  etc.,  of  Australia),  and  the  true  opossums  of 
America,  called  imjylacental  Ilanimals.  Now,  the  ])laccn- 
tal  mammals  are  subdivided  into  various  orders,  amonnr 
which  are  the  flesh-eaters  (Carniv^ora,  i.  e.,  cats,  dogs,  ot- 
ters, weasels,  etc.),  and  the  insect-eaters  (Insectivora,  i.  c., 
moles,  hedgehogs,  shrew-mice,  etc.).  The  marsupial  mam- 
m.'ds  also  present  a  variety  of  forms  (some  of  which  are 
carnivorous  beasts,  while  others  are  insectivorous),  so 
marked  that  it  has  been  even  proposed  to  divide  them  into 
orders  parallel  to  the  orders  of  placental  beasts. 

The  resemblance,  indeed,  is  so  striking  as,  on  Darwinian 
principles,  to  suggest  the  probability  of  genetic  affinity ; 
and  it  even  led  Prof.  Huxley,  in  his  Hunterian  Lectures,  in 
18GG,  to  promulgate  the  notion  that  a  vast  and  widely-dif- 
fused marsupial  fauna  may  have  existed  anteriorly  to  the 


TEEXn  or  UROTBIOnTIS   AND  TERAMELES 


development  of  the  ordinary  placental,  non-pouched  beasts, 
and  that  the    carnivorous,  insectivorous,  and  herbivorous 

3  I.  c,  warm-blooded  animals  which  suckle  their  younp,  such  as  apes, 
bats,  hoofed  beasts,  lions,  dogs,  bears,  weasels,  rats,  squirrels,  armadillos, 
sloths,  whales,  porpoises,  kangaroos,  opossums,  etc. 


82  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

placentals  may  have  respectively  descended  from  the  car- 
nivorous, insectivorous,  and  herbivorous  marsu])ials. 

Among  otlier  points  Prof.  Huxley  called  attention  to 
the  resemblance  between  the  anterior  molars  of  the  placen- 
tal dog  with  those  of  the  marsupial  thylacine.  These,  in- 
deed, are  strikingly  similar,  but  there  are  better  exam})les 
still  of  this  sort  of  coincidence.  Thus  it  has  often  been  re- 
marked that  the  insectivorous  marsupials,  e.  g.,  Pcnundc^^ 
wonderfully  correspond,  as  to  the  form  of  certain  of  the 
grinding  teeth,  with  certain  insectivorous  placentals,  e.  g., 
Urotrichus. 

Again,  the  saltatory  insectivores  of  Africa  [Macrosce- 
lides)  not  only  resemble  the  kangaroo  family  [Jfacropodidtt) 
in  their  jumping  habits  and  long  hind-legs,  but  also  in  the 
structure  of  their  molar  teeth,  and  even  further,  as  I  have 
elsewhere  *  pointed  out,  in  a  certain  similarity  of  the  upper 
cutting  teeth,  or  incisors. 

Now,  these  correspondences  are  the  more  striking  when 
we  bear  in  mind  that  a  similar  dentition  is  often  put  to 
very  different  uses.  The  food  of  different  kinds  of  apes  is 
very  different,  yet  how  uniform  is  their  dental  structure  ! 
Again,  who,  looking  at  the  teeth  of  different  kinds  of  bears, 
would  ever  susj)ect  that  one  kind  was  frugivorous,  and 
another  a  devourer  exclusively  of  animal  food  ? 

The  suggestion  made  by  Prof.  Huxley  was  therefore 
one  which  had  much  to  recommend  it  to  ])arwinians, 
though  it  has  not  met  with  any  notable  acceptance,  and 
though  he  seems  himself  to  have  returned  to  the  older  no- 
tion, namely,  that  the  pouched-beasts,  or  marsupials,  are  a 
special  ancient  offshoot  from  the  great  mammalian  class. 

But,  whichever  view  may  be  the  correct  one,  we  have  in 
either  case  a  number  of  forms  similarly  modified  in  har- 
mony with  surrounding  conditions,  and  eloquently  proclaim- 
ing some  natural  plastic  power,  other  than  mere  fortuitous 

*  "  Journal  of  Anatomy  and  Physiology  "  (18G8),  vol.  ii.,  p.  139. 


III.]         INDEPENDENT   SIMILARITIES  OF  STRUCTURE.  83 

variation  with  survival  of  tlio  fittest.  If,  however,  the 
reader  tliiiiks  that  teeth  are  parts  peculiarly  qualifiecl  for 
rapid  variation  (in  which  view  the  author  cannot  concur), 
he  is  re(piested  to  suspend  his  judgment  till  he  has  con- 
sidered the  question  of  tlie  independent  evolution  of  the 
highest  orrjaiis  of  sense.  If  this  seems  to  establish  the 
existence  of  some  other  law  than  tliat  of  "  Natural  Selec- 
tion," tlien  the  operation  of  that  other  law  may  surely  be 
also  traced  in  the  liarmonious  coordinations  of  dental  form. 

Tiie  other  difficulty,  kindly  suggested  to  me  by  the 
learned  professor,  refers  to  the  structure  of  birds,  and  of 
extinct  reptiles  more  or  less  related  to  them. 

The  class  of  birds  is  one  which  is  remarkabl}''  uniform  in 
its  organization.  So  much  is  this  the  case,  that  the  best 
mode  ()f  subdividing  the  class  is  a  problem  of  the  greatest 
diiriculty.  Existing  birds,  however,  present  forms  which, 
though  closely  resembling  in  the  greater  part  of  their  struct- 
ure, yet  differ  importantly  the  one  from  the  other.  One 
form  is  exem[)lified  by  the  ostrich,  rliea,  emeu,  cassowary, 
apteryx,  dinornis,  etc.  These  are  the  struthious  birds. 
All  other  existing  birds  belong  to  the  second  division, 
and  arc  called  (from  the  keel  on  the  breast-bone)  carinate 
birds. 

Now,  birds  and  reptiles  have  such  and  so  many  points 
in  common  that  Darwinians  must  regard  the  former  as 
modified  descendants  of  ancient  reptilian  forms.  But  on 
Darwinian  principles  it  is  impossible  that  the  class  of  birds 
so  uniform  and  homogeneous  should  have  had  a  double  rep- 
tilian origin.  If  one  set  of  birds  sprang  from  one  set  of  rep- 
tiles, and  another  set  of  birds  from  another  set  of  reptiles, 
the  two  sets  could  never,  by  "  Natural  Selection  "  only,  liave 
grown  into  such  a  perfect  similarity.  To  admit  such  a 
j)henomenon  would  be  equivalent  to  abandoning  the  theory 
of  "  Natural  Selection  "  as  the  sole  origin  of  species. 

Now,  until  recently  it  has  generally  been  supposed  by 


84  TlIK   GKNESrS   OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

evolutionists  tliat  tliose  ancient  flying  reptiles,  the  ptero- 
dactyls, or  foriDS   iillied   to   them,  were   the  progenitors  of 
the  class  of  birds ;  and  certain  parts  of  their  structure  espe- 
cially  support  this   view.     Allusion   is   here   made   to  the 
blade-bone  (scapula)  and  the  bone  which  passes  down  from 
the   shoulder-joint  to   the  breast-bone    (viz.,  the  coracoid). 
These  bones  are  such  remarkable  anticipations  of  the  same 
parts  in  ordinary  (i.  e.,  carinate)  birds  that  it  is  hardly  pos- 
sible for  a  Darwinian  not  to  regard  the  resemblance  as  due 
to   community  of  origin.      This  resemblance  was  carefully 
pointed   out   by  Prof.  Huxley  in  his   "  Ilunterian  Course  " 
for  18G7,  when  attention  was  called  to  the  existence  in  Dl- 
inorphodon  inacromjx  of  even  that  small  process  which  in 
birds  gives  attachment  to   the  upper  end  of  the   merry- 
thought.    Also  Mr.  Seeley  *  has   shown  that  in  pterodac- 
tyls, as  in  birds,  the  optic  lobes  of  the  brain  were  placed 
low  down  on  each  side — "  lateral  and  depressed."     Never- 
theless, the  view  has  been  put  forward  and  ably  maintained 
by  the  same  professor,'  as  also  by  Prof.  Cope  in  the  United 
States,  that  the  line  of  descent  from  reptiles  to  birds  has 
not  been  from   ordinary  reptiles,  through  pterodactyl-like 
forms,  to  ordinary  birds,  but  to   the  struthious  ones  from 
certain  extinct  reptiles  termed  Dinosauria ;  one  of  the  most 
familiarly  known  of  which  is   the  Iguanodon  of  the  Weal- 
den  formation.     In  these  Dinosauria  we  find  skeletal  char- 
acters unlike   those   of  ordinary  (i.  e.,  carinate)   birds,  but 
closely  resembling  in  certain  points  the  osseous  structure 
of  the  struthious  birds.    Thus  a  difliculty  presents  itself  as 
to    the  ex[)lanation  of  the  three  following  relationships: 
(1)  That  of  the  Pterodactyls  with  carinate  birds;   (2)  that 

*  See  "Ann.  and  Mag.  of  Nat.  Ilist."  for  August,  1870,  p.  140. 

®  See  "  Proceeilingd  of  the  lioyul  Institution,"  vol.  v.,  part  iv.,  p.  278  : 
Report  of  a  Lecture  delivered  February  7,  1808.  Also  "  (^uirterly  Jour- 
nal of  the  Geological  Society,"  February,  1870.  "Contributions  to  the 
Anatomy  and  Taxonomy  of  the  Dinosauria." 


^^. 


III.]        INDEPENDENT   SIMILARITIES  OF  STRUCTURE.  85 

of  tlic   Diiiosauria   with  striiihious  birds;   (3)   that  of  the 
cariiiatc  and  struthious  birds  with  each  other. 

Either  birds  must  have  had  two  distinct  origins  whence 
they  grew  to  their  present  conformity,  or  tlie  very  same 
skeletal,  and  probably  cerebral  characters,  must  have  spon- 
taneously and  independently  arisen.  Here  is  a  dilemma, 
either  horn  of  which  bcnrs  a  threatening  as})ect  to  the 
exclusive  supporter  of  "  Natural  Selection,"  and  between 
which  it  seems  somewhat  difficult  to  choose. 

It  has  been  suggested  to  me  that  this  difficulty  may  be 
evaded  by  considering  pterodactyls  and  carinatc  birds  as 
independent  branches  from  one  side  of  an  ancient  common 
trunk,  while  similarly  the  Dinosauria  and  struthious  birds 
arc  tnken  to  be  independent  branches  from  the  other  side 
of  the  same  common  trunk ;  the  two  kinds  of  birds  resem- 
bling each  other  so  much  on  account  of  their  later  develop- 
ment from  that  trunk  as  compared  with  the  development 
of  the  reptilian  forms.  But  to  this  it  may  be  replied  that 
the  ancient  common  stock  could  not  have  had  at  one  and 
the  same  time  a  shoulder  structure  of  both  kmds.  It  must 
have  been  that  of  the  struthious  birds  or  that  of  the  c<^ri- 
nate  birds,  or  something  different  from  both.  If  it  was  that 
of  the  struthious  birds,  how  did  tlie  pterodactyls  and  cari- 
nate  birds  independently  arrive  at  the  very  same  divergent 
structure?  If  it  was  that  of  the  carinate  birds,  how  did 
the  struthious  birds  and  Dinosauria  independently  agree  to 
differ?  Finally,  if  it  was  something  different  from  cither, 
how  did  the  carinate  birds  and  pterodactyls  take  on  inde- 
pendently one  special  common  structure  when  disagreeing 
in  so  many ;  while  the  struthious  birds,  agreeing  in  many 
points  with  the  Dinosauria,  agree  yet  more  with  the  cari- 
nate birds  ?  Indeed,  l)y  no  arrangement  of  branches  from  a 
stem  can  the  difficulty  be  evaded. 

Prof.  Huxley  seems  incHned '  to  cut  the  Gordian  knot 

'  "Trocccdings  of  Geological  Society,"  November,  18G9,  p.  38. 


86 


TIIK   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES. 


[ClIAl 


by  considering  the  shoulder  structure  of  the  pterodactyl 
as  indej^endcntly  educed,  iind  having  relation  to  physiology 
only.  This  conception  is  one  which  harmonizes  completely 
with  the  views  here  advocated,  and  with  those  of  Mr.  Her- 
bert Spencer,  Avho  also  calls  in  direct  modification  to  the 
aid  of  "  Natural  Selection."  Tliat  merely  minute,  indefmite 
variations  in  all  directions  should  unaided  have  indej)cn- 
dently  built  up  the  shoulder  structure  of  the  plerodaclyls 
and  carinate  birds,  and  have  laterally  depressed  their  o])tic 
lobes,  at  a  time  so  far  back  as  the  deposition  of  the  Oolite 


THE  AECiiEOPTEUYX  (of  the  OoUtc  struta). 

strata,*  is  a  coincidence  of  the  highest  improbability ;  but 
that  an  innate  power  and  evolutionary  law,  aided  by  the 
corrective  action  of  "  Natural  Selection,"  should  have  fur- 
nished like  needs  with  like  aids,  is  not  at  all  improbable. 
The  dilliculty  does  not  tell  against  the  theory  of  evolution, 
but  only  against  the  specially  Darwinian  form  of  it.  Now, 
this  form  has  never  been  expressly  adopted  by  Prof.  Huxley ; 


^  The  archeopteryx  of  the  oolite  has  the  true  carinate  shoulder  struct- 


ure. 


III.]         INDEPENDENT   SIMILARITIES  OF  STRUCTURE.  87 

SO  far  from  it,  in  his  lecture  on  tliis  subject  at  the  Royal 
Institution  before  referred  to,  he  observes:  •  "  I  can  testify, 
from  personal  experience,  it  is  possible  to  have  a  comj^lete 
faith  in  the  general  doctrine  of  evolution,  and  yet  to  hesi- 
tate in  accepting  the  Nebular,  or  the  Uniformitarian,  or 
the  Darwinian  hypotheses  in  all  their  integrity  and  ful- 
ness." 

It  is  quite  consistent,  then,  in  the  professor  to  explain 
tlie  difficulty  as  he  does ;  but  it  would  not  be  similarly  so 
witli  an  absolute  and  pure  Darwinian. 

Yet  stronger  arguments  of  an  analogous  kind  are,  how- 
ever, to  l)e  derived  from  the  liighest  organs  of  sense.  In 
the  most  perfectl3'-organized  animals — tliosc,  namel}',  which, 
Hkc  ourselves,  possess  a  spinal  column — the  internal  organs 
of  hearing  consist  of  two  more  or  less  complex  membranous 
sacs  (containing  calcareous  particles — otoliths),  which  are 
primitively  or  permanently  lodged  in  two  chambers,  one  on 
each  side  of  the  cartilaginous  skull.  The  primitive  cartila- 
ginous cranium  supports  and  protects  the  base  of  the  brain, 
and  the  auditory  nerves  pass  from  the  brain  into  the  cartila- 
ginous chambers  to  reach  the  auditory  sacs.  These  com- 
plex arrangements  of  parts  could  not  have  been  evolved  by 
"Natural  Selection,"  i.  e.,  by  minute  accidental  variations, 
except  by  the  action  of  such  through  a  vast  period  of  time ; 
nevertheless,  it  was  fully  evolved  at  the  time  of  the  deposi- 
tion of  the  upper  Silurian  rocks. 

Cuttlefishes  ( Cephalopoda)  are  animals  belonging  to  the 
molluscous  primary  division  of  the  animal  kingdom,  which 
division  contains  animals  formed  upon  a  type  of  structure 
utterly  remote  from  that  on  which  the  animals  of  the 
higher  division  provided  with  a  spinal  column  are  construct- 
ed. And  indeed  no  transitional  form  (tending  even  to 
bridge  over  the  chasm  between  these  two  groups)  has  ever 


9  <«  P 


rroccedings  of  the  Royal  Institution,"  vol.  v.,  p.  270. 


88 


THE  GENESIS  OF   SPECIES. 


[Chap. 


yet  been  discovered,  eitljer  living  or  in  a  fossilized  condi- 
tion.'" 

Nevertheless,  in  the  two-gilled  Cephalopods  {JDibran- 
cJiiata)  we  iind  the  bruin  supported  and  i)rotected  by  a  car- 
tilaginous cranium.  In  the  base  of  this  cranium  are  two 
cartilaginous  chambers.  In  each  chamber  is  a  membranous 
sac  containing  an  otolith,  and  the  auditory  nerves  pass  from 


B 


CPTTLE-FISn. 

A.  Ventral  aspect.  B.  Dorsal  aspect. 


the  cerebral  ganglia  into  the  cartilaginous  cliambers  to  reach 
the  auditory  sacs.  Moreover,  it  has  been  suggested  by 
Prof.  Owen  that  sinuosities  between  processes  projecting 
from  the  inner  wall  of  each  chamber  "seem  to  be  tiie  hrst 
rudiments  of  those  which,  in  the  higher  classes  (i.  e.,  in 
animals  with  a  sjiinal  column),  are  extended  in  the  form  of 

"^  Tills  remark  is  niade  witliout  prejudice  to  possible  aninities  in  the 
direetion  of  the  Ascidians — an  allinity  which,  if  real,  would  be  irrelevant 
to  the  question  liere  discussed. 


III.]         INDEPENDENT   SIMILARITIES  OF  STRUCTURE.  80 

c.iiials  and  spiral    cliatnbcrs,   within    the  substance  of  the 
dense  nidus  of  the  hibyrinth."  " 

Here,  then,  we  have  a  wonderful  coincidence  indeed  ; 
two  highly-complex  auditory  organs,  marvellousl}'  similar 
in  structure,  but  which  must  nevertheless  have  been  devel- 
oped in  entire  and  complete  independence  one  of  the 
other  I  It  woidd  be  difTicult  to  calculate  the  odds  against 
the  indcjiendent  occurrence  and  conservation  of  two  such 
complex  series  of  merely  accidental  and  minute  haphazard 
variations.  And  it  can  never  be  maintained  that  the  sense 
of  hearing  could  not  be  eflicicntly  subserved  otherwise 
than  by  snc^h  sacs,  in  cranial  cartilaginous  capsules  so  situ- 
ated in  rclalion  to  the  [)rain,  etc. 

Our  wonder,  moreover,  may  be  increased  when  we 
recollect  that  the  two-gilled  cephalopods  have  not  yet  been 
found  below  the  lias,  where  they  at  once  abound ;  whereas 
the  four-gilled  cephalopods  are  Silurian  forms.  Moreover, 
the  absence  is  in  this  case  significant  in  spite  of  the  imper- 
fection of  the  geological  record,  because  when  we  consider 
how  many  individuals  of  various  kinds  of  four-gilled  cej)hal- 
opods  have  been  found,  it  is  fair  to  infer  that  at  the  least 
a  certain  small  percentage  of  cHbranchs  would  also  have 
left  traces  of  their  presence  had  they  existed.  Thus  it  is 
probable  that  sotuc  four-gilled  form  was  the  progenitor  of 
the  dil)ranch  cephalopods.  Now,  the  four-gilled  kinds 
(judging  from  the  only  existing  form,  the  nautilus)  had  the 
auditory  organ  in  a  very  inferior  condition  of  development 
to  what  we  find  in  the  dibranch ;  thus  we  have  not  only 
evidence  of  the  independent  high  development  of  the  organ 
in  the  former,  but  also  evidence  pointing  toward  a  certain 
degree  of  comparative  rapidity  in  its  development. 

Such  being  the  case  with   regard  to  the  organ  of  hear- 
ing, we  have  another  yet  stronger  argument  with  regard  to 

"  "  Lectures  on  llic  Comp.  Anat.  of  the  Invertebrate  Animnls,"  2(1 
edit.,  1855,  p.  619  ;  and  Todd's  "  Cyclopaedia  of  Anatomy,"  vol.  i.,  p.  664. 


90  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Ciup. 

the  organ  of  sight,  as  lias  been  well  pointed  out  by  Mr.  J. 
J.  Mur])hy.'"  lie  eulls  attention  to  the  faet  that  tiie  eye 
must  have  been  perfected  in  at  least  "  three  distinct  lines 
of  descent,"  alluding  not  only  to  the  molluscous  division 
of  the  animal  kingdom,  and  the  division  provided  with  a 
spinal  colunm,  but  also  to  a  third  primary  division,  namely, 
that  which  includes  all  insects,  spiders,  crabs,  etc.,  which 
are  sj)oken  of  as  Annulosa,  and  the  type  of  whose  structure 
is  as  distinct  from  that  of  the  molluscous  type  on  the  one 
hand,  as  it  is  from  that  of  the  type  with  a  spinal  column 
(i.  e.,  the  vertebrate  type)  on  the  other. 

In  the  cuttle-fishes  we  find  an  eye  even  more  complete- 
ly constructed  on  the  vertebrate  type  than  is  the  ear. 
Sclerotic,  retina,  choroid,  vitreous  humor,  lens,  atjueous  hu- 
mor, all  are  i)re8ent.  The  correspondencie  is  wonderfully 
complete,  and  there  can  hardly  be  any  hesitation  in  saying 
that  for  such  an  exact,  prolonged,  and  correlated  series  of 
similar  structures  to  have  been  brought  about  in  two  inde- 
pendent instances  by  merely  indefinite  and  minute  acci- 
dental variations,  is  an  improbability  which  amounts  prac- 
tically to  imj)ossibility.  Moreover,  we  have  here  again 
the  same  im})erfection  of  the  four-gilled  ceplialopod,  as  com- 
pared with  the  two-gilled,  and  therefore  (if  the  latter  pro- 
ceeded from  the  former)  a  similar  indication  of  a  certain 
comparative  rapidity  of  development.  Finally,  and  this  is 
perhaps  one  of  the  most  curious  circumstances,  the  process 
of  formation  appears  to  have  been,  at  least  in  some  re- 
spects, the  same  in  the  eyes  of  these  molluscous  animals  as 
in  the  eyes  of  vertebrates.  For  in  these  latter  the  cornea 
is  at  first  perforated,  while  diflerent  degree's  of  perforation 
of  the  same  part  are  presented  by  difierent  adult  cuttle- 
fishes— large  in  the  calamaries,  smaller  in  the  octopods, 
and  reduced  to  a  minute  foramen  in  the  true  cuttle-fish 
sepia. 

"  Sec  "Ilabit  and  luteUigence,"  vol.  i.,  p.  321. 


III.]        INDEPENDENT  SIMILARITIES  OF  STllUCTUUE.  91 

Some  may  be  disposed  to  object  that  the  conditions 
ro(iuisitc  for  cnbcting  vision  arc  so  ri«rid  tliat  similar  results 
in  all  cases  nuist  be  independcMitly  arrived  at.  Ikit  to  this 
objection  it  may  well  be  replied  that  Nature  herself  has 
diMuonstrated  that  there  is  no  such  necessity  as  to  the  de- 
tails of  tlic  process.  For  in  the  higher  Annulosa,  such  as 
the  drngon-fl}'^,  we  meet  with  an  eye  of  an  unc^uestionably 
very  high  d("gree  of  efficiency,  but  formed  on  a  type  of 
structure  only  remotely  comparable  with  that  of  the  fish 
or  the  cephalopod.  The  last-named  animal  might  have  had 
an  eye  as  eflicient  as  that  of  a  vertebrate,  but  formed  on  a 
distinct  type,  instead  of  being  another  edition,  as  it  were, 
of  the  very  same  structure. 

In  the  beginning  of  this  chapter  examples  liave  been 
given  of  the  very  diverse  mode  in  which  similar  results 
have  in  many  instances  been  arrived  at;  on  the  other  hand, 
we  have  in  the  fish  and  the  cephalopod  not  only  the  eye, 
but  at  one  and  the  same  time  the  ear  also  similarly  evolved, 
yet  with  complete  independence. 

Thus  it  is  here  contended  that  the  similar  and  complex 
structures  of  ])oth  the  highest  organs  of  sense,  as  developed 
in  the  vertebrates  on  the  one  hand,  and  in  the  mollusks  on 
the  other,  present  us  with  residuary  phenomena  for  which 
"  Natural  Selection  "  alone  is  quite  incompetent  to  account; 
and  that  these  same  phenomena  must  therefore  be  consid- 
ered as  conclusive  evidence  for  the  action  of  some  other 
natural  law  or  laws  conditioning  the  simultaneous  and  in- 
dependent evolution  of  these  harmonious  and  concordant 
adnptati(ms. 

Provided  with  this  evidence,  it  may  be  now  profitable 
to  enumerate  other  correspondences,  which  are  not  perhaps 
in  themselves  inexplicable  by  Natural  Selection,  but  which 
are  more  readily  to  be  explained  by  the  action  of  the  un- 
known law  or  laws  referred  to — which  action,  as  its  neces- 
sity has  been  demonstrated  in  one  case,  becomes  ajyriori 
probable  in  the  others. 


0-> 


THE  GENESIS   OF   SPECIES. 


[Chap. 


Thus  the  great  oceanic  Maininalia — tlie  whales — sliow 
striking  resenibhinces  to  those   prodigious,  extinct,  marine 


8KELKT0K    OF    AN    ICUTUYOBAUBUS. 


reptiles,  tlie  Ichthyosauria,  and  this  not  only  in  structures 
readily  referable  to  similarity  of  habit,  but  in  such  matters 
as  greatly  elongated  premaxillary  bones,  together  with  the 
conceuhnent  of  certain  bones  of  the  skull  by  other  cranial 
bones. 

Again,  the  aerial  mammals,  the  bats,  resemble  those  (ly- 
ing reptiles  of  the  secondary  epoch,  the  pterodactyls;  not 
only  to  a  certain  extent  in  the  breast-bone  and  mode  of  sup- 
porting the  flying  membrane,  but  also  in  the  proportions  of 
different  parts  of  the  spinal  column  and  the  hinder  (pelvic) 
limbs 

Also  bivalve  shell-fish  (i.  e.,  creatures  of  the  muscle, 
cockle,  and  oysttu*  class,  which  receive  their  name  from  the 
body  being  ])rotected  by  a  double  shell,  one  valve  of  which 
is  placed  on  each  side)  have  their  two  shells  united  by  one 
or  two  powerful  muscles,  which  pass  directly  across  from 
one  shell  to  the  other,  and  Avhich  are  termed  "  adductor 
muscles"  because  by  their  contraction  they  bring  together 
the  valves  and  so  close  the  shell. 

Now  there  are  certain  animals  which  belong  to  the  crab 
and  lobster  class  (Crustacea) — a  class  constructed  on  an 
utterly  different  type  from  that  on  which  the  bivalve  shell- 
fish are  constructed — which  present  a  very  curious  approxi- 
mation to  both  the  form  and,  in  a  certain  respect,  the 
structure  of  true  bivalves.    Allusion  is  here  made  to  certain 


III.]        INDEPENDENT   SIMILARITIES  OF  STRUCTUKE.  93 

small  Crustacea — certain  phjllopodg  and  ostracods — which 
have  the  liard  outer  coat  of  their  thorax  so  modified  as  to 
look  wonderfully  like  a  bivalve  shell,  although  its  nature 
and  composition  are  quite  different.  But  this  is  by  no 
means   all — not   only  is   there    this    external  resemblance 


CYTIIERIDKA    TOROBA. 

[An  ostmcwl  (Cnistaccan),  externally  like  a  bivalve  shellfish  (Lamellibranch).] 

between  the  thoracic  armor  of  the  crustacean  and  the 
bivalve  shell,  but  the  two  sides  of  the  ostracod  and  phyllo- 
pod  thorax  arc  connected  together  also  by  an  adductor 
muscle ! 

The  pedicellarias  of  the  echinus  have  been  already  spo- 
ken of,  and  the  difTiculty  as  to  their  origin  from  minute, 
fortuitous,  indefinite  variations  has  been  stated.  But 
structures  essentially  similar  (called  avicularia,  or  "  bird's- 
head  processes")  are  developed  from  the  surface  of  the 
compound  masses  of  certain  of  the  highest  of  the  pol}'])- 
like  animals  (viz.,  the  Polyzoa  or,  as  they  are  sometimes 
called,  the  Bryozoa). 

These  compound  animals  have  scattered  over  the  surface 
of  their  bodies  minute  ])rocesses,  each  of  which  is  like  the 


94 


THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES. 


[ClIAI' 


head  of  a  bird,  with  an  upper  and  lower  heak,  the  wliole 
supported  on  a  slender  neck.  The  beak  opens  and  shxits 
at  intervals,  like  the  jaws  of  the  pedicellaria3  of  the  echi- 
nus, and  there  is  altogether,  in  general  principle,  a  remark. 


A   POLTZOON    WITH   OIBD's-HEAD   I'BOCESSES. 


able  similarity  between  the  structures.  Yet  the  echiiuis 
can  have,  at  the  best,  none  but  the  most  distant  genetic 
relationship   with   the    Polyzoa.      We    have    here    again. 


III.J        INDI'U'ENDENT  SIMILARITIES  OF  STRUCTUKE.         95 

tlicrcforc,  complex  and  similar  organs  of  diverse  and  inde- 
pendent origin. 


bird'b-uead  processes  vert  gkeatlt  enlarged. 


In  tlie  highest  class  of  animals  (the  Mammalia)  we  have 
almost  always  a  placental  mode  of  reproduction,  i.  e.,  the 
hlood  of  the  fcKtns  is  placed  in  nutritive  relation  with  the 
Mood  of  the  mother  by  means  of  vascular  prominencCvS. 
No  trace  of  such,  a  structure  exists  in  any  bird  or  in  an}' 
reptile,  and  yet  it  crops  out  again  in  certain  sharks.  There 
indeed  it  might  well  be  supposed  to  end,  but,  marvellous 
as  it  seems,  it  reappears  in  very  lowly  creatures ;  namely, 
in  certain  of  the  ascidians,  somethnes  called  tunicaries  or 
sea-squirts. 

Now,  if  we  were  to  concede  that  the  ascidians  were  the 
common  ancestors  '^  of  both  these  sharks  and  of  the  higher 
mammals,  we  should  be  little,  if  any,  nearer  to  an  explana- 
tion of  the  phenomenon  by  means  of  "  Natural  Selection," 
for  in  the  sharks  in  question  the  vascular  prominences  arc 
developed  from  one  foetal  structure  (the  umbilical  vesicle), 
while  in  the  the  higher  mammals  they  are  developed  from 
quite  another  part,  viz.,  the  allantois.  • 

So  great,  however,  is  the  number  of  similar,  but  ap- 
parently independent  structures,  that  wp  suffer  from  a  per- 
f(;ct  emharran  do  richesses.  Thus,  for  example,  we  have 
the  convoluted  windpipe  of  the  sloth,  reminding  us  of  the 
condition  of  the  windpipe  in  birds;  and  in  another  mammal, 

'^  A  viow   roconily  propoiindod  by'Kownlewsky. 


96 


THE   GENESIS   OF   SPECIES. 


[Chap 


allied  to  the  sloth,  iiainel}',  the  great  ant-eater  (Myrme- 
cophaga),  we  have  again  an  ornithic  ciiaracter  in  its  hornj' 
gizzard-like  stomach.  In  man  and  the  liighest  apes  the 
caiciun  has  a  vermiform  ap])endix,  as  it  has  also  in  the 
wombat  1 


Upper  Figure — Antechincs  minctissimus  {imjdacental). 
Lower  Fij,'ure — Mua  delioatulub  (plueeiital). 

Also  the  similar  forms  presented  by  the  crowns  of  the 
teeth  in  some  seals,  in  certain  sharks,  and  in  some  extinct 
Oetacea,  niay  be  referred  to;  as  also  the  similarity  of  the 
beak  in  birds,  some  reptiles,  in  the  tad])ole,  and  cuttle- 
fishes. As  to  entire  external  form,  may  be  adduced  the 
wonderful  similarity  between  a  true  mouse  [Mtis  dellcata- 
lus)  and  a   small   marsuj)ial,  pointed  out  by  Mr.  Andrew 


in.]        INDEPENDENT   SIMILARITIES   OF   STRUCTURE.         97 

IMurraj  in  liis  work  on  ilic  "  Geographical  Distributions  of 
Mammals,"  j).  53,  and  represented  in  the  frontispiece  by 
figures  copied  from  Gould's  "Mammals  of  Australia;"  but 
instances  enough  for  the  present  j^urpose  have  been  already 
quoted. 

Additional  reasons  for  believing  that  similarity  of  struct- 
ure is  ))roduced  by  other  causes  than  merely  by  "  Natural 
Selection "  are  furnished  by  certain  facts  of  zoological 
geography,  and  by  a  similarity  in  the  mode  of  variation 
being  sometimes  extended  to  several  species  of  a  genus,  or 
even  to  widely-diHcreht  groups  ;  while  the  restriction  and  tlie 
limitation  of  such  similarity  are  often  not  less  remarkable. 
Thus  Mr.  ^^^allacc  saj's,'*  as  to  local  influence  :  "Larger  or 
smaller  districts,  or  even  single  islands,  give  a  special 
chiiractcr  to  the  majority  of  their  Papilionidno.  For  in- 
stance: 1.  The  species  of  the  Indian  region  (Sumatra, 
Java,  and  Borneo)  are  almost  invariably  smaller  than  the 
allied  species  inhabiting  Celebes  and  the  Moluccas.  2.  The 
species  of  New  Guinea  and  Australia  are  also,  though  in  a 
less  degree,  smaller  than  the  nearest  species  or  varieties  of 
the  Moluccas.  3.  In  the  Moluccas  themselves  the  species 
of  Amboyna  are  the  largest.  4.  The  species  of  Celebes 
equal  or  even  surpass  in  size  those  of  Amboyna.  6.  The 
species  and  varieties  of  Celebes  possess  a  striking  charac- 
ter in  the  form  of  the  anterior  wings,  different  from  that 
of  the  allied  species  and  varieties  of  all  the  surrounding 
islands.  G.  Tailed  species  in  India  or  the  Indian  region  be- 
come tailless  as  they  spread  eastward  through  the  Archi- 
pelago. 7.  In  Amboj^na  aiul  Ceram  the  femides  of  several 
species  are  dull-colored,  while  in  the  adjacent  islands  they 
are  more  brilliant."  Again  :  ''  "  In  Amboyna  and  Ceram 
the  female  of  the  large  and  handsome  Ornithoptera  Jleleim 
has  a  large  patcli  on  the  hind-wings  constantly  of  a  pale 
dull  ochre  or  buff  color;  while  in  the  scarcely  distinguish- 
'«  "Niltiiral  Soloctloii,"  p.  107.  "  Ibid.,  p.  173. 

5 


98  TIIK   CKNKSIS   OF  SPKCIES.  [Cuai'. 

able  varieties  from  Ihc  adjacent  islands,  of  Bonru  and  New 
Guinea,  it  is  of  a  golden  yellow,  hardly  inferior  in  brilliancy 
to  its  color  in  the  male  sex.  The  female  of  OrnltJioptcra 
I^ianuts  (inhabiting  Amboyna  and  Ceram  exclusively)  is 
of  a  pale  dusky-brown  tint,  while  in  all  the  allied  species 
the  same  sex  is  nearly  black,  with  eonlra(;ted  white  mark- 
ings. As  a  third  example,  the  female  of  l\q>ilio  XJlysses 
has  the  blue  color  obscured  by  dull  and  dusky  litits,  while 
in  the  closely-alUed  species  from  the  sunounding  islands, 
the  faendes  are  of  almost  as  brilliant  an  azure  blue  as  the 
males.  A  ])arallel  case  to  this  is  the  occurrence,  in  the 
small  islands  of  Goram,  ]\bitabello,  Ke,  and  Aru,  of  several 
distinct  species  of  Eupla'a  and  Diadema,  having  broad 
bands  or  patches  of  white,  which  do  not  exist  in  any  of 
the  allied  species  from  the  larger  islands.  These  facts 
seem  to  indicate  some  local  inlluence  in  modifying  ccjlor, 
us  unintelligible  and  almost  as  remarkable  as  that  which 
has  resulted  in  the  modifications  of  form  previously  de- 
scribed." 

After  endeavoring  to  explain  some  of  the  facts  in  a  way 
to  be  noticed  directly,  Mr.  ^yallace  adds :  ^°  "  But  even  the 
conjectural  explanation  now  given  fails  us  in  the  other  cases 
of  local  modilication.  ANHiy  the  species  of  the  Western 
Islands  should  be  snuiller  than  those  farther  east;  whv 
those  of  Amboyna  should  exceed  in  size  those  of  Gilolo 
and  New  Guinea  ;  why  the  tailed  species  of  India  should 
begin  to  lose  that  appendage  in  the  islands,  and  retain  no 
trace  of  it  on  the  borders  of  the  Pacific;  and  why,  in  three 
separate  cases,  the  females  of  Amboyna  species  should  be 
less  gayly  attired  than  the  corresponding  females  of  the  sur- 
rounding islands,  are  questions  which  we  cannot  at  })resent 
attempt  to  answer.  That  they  depend,  however,  on  some 
general  principle  is  certain,  because  analogous  facts  have 
been  observed  in  other  parts  of  the  woild.     !Mr.  Bates  in- 

"5  "Natural  Selection,"  p.  177. 


III.]        INDEPENDENT   SIMILARITIES   OF   STHUCTURE.  99 

forms  me  that,  in  three  distinct  groups,  Papilios,  which,  on 
tlic  Upper  Amazon,  and  in  most  other  parts  of  South 
America,  have  spotless  upper  wings,  obtain  pale  or  white 
spots  at  Par/i  and  on  tlie  Lower  Amazon,  and  also  that  the 
yEneas  group  of  Papilios  never  have  tails  in  the  equatorial 
regions  and  the  Amazon  vallcj'^,  but  gradually  acquire  tails  in 
many  cases  as  they  range  toward  the  northern  or  southern 
tropic.  Even  in  Europe  we  have  somewhat  similar  facts, 
for  the  species  and  varieties  of  butterflies  peculiar  to  the 
Island  of  Sardinia  are  generally  smaller  and  more  deeply 
colored  than  those  of  the  main-land,  and  the  same  has  been 
recently  shown  to  be  the  case  witli  the  common  tortoise- 
shcll  butterfly  in  Ihc  Isle  of  Man ;  while  Papillo  J[of^piton^ 
peculiar  to  the  former  island,  has  lost  the  fail,  which  is  a 
prominent  feature  of  the  closely-allied  1\  Machaon. 

"  Facts  of  a  similar  nature  to  those  now  broujrht  for- 
ward  would  no  doubt  be  found  to  occur  in  other  groups  of 
insects,  were  local  faunas  carefully  studied  in  relation  to 
those  of  the  surrounding  countries ;  and  they  seem  to  indi- 
cate that  climate  and  other  jihj'sical  causes  have,  in  some 
cases,  a  very  powerful  elTect  in  modifying  specific  form  and 
color,  and  thus  directly  aid  in  producing  the  endless  Variety 
of  nature." 

With  regard  to  butterflies  of  Celebes  belonging  to  dif- 
ferent families,  they  present  "  a  peculiarity  of  outline  which 
distinguishes  them  at  a  glance  from  those  of  any  other  part 
of  the  world :  "  "  it  is  that  the  upper  wings  are  generally 
more  elongated  and  tlie  anterior  margin  more  curved. 
Moreover,  there  is,  in  most  instances,  near  the  base,  an 
abru[)t  bend  or  elbow,  which  in  some  species  is  very  con- 
spicuous. Mr.  Wallace  endeavors  to  explain  this  phenoine- 
non  by  the  supposed  presence  at  some  time  of  special  per- 
secutors of  the  modified  forms,  supporting  the  Ojiinion  by 
the  remark  that  small,  obscure,  very  rapidly  flying  and  mim- 
"  "  Malay  Archipelago,"  vol.  i.,  p.  430. 


100 


THE  GENESIS  OF  SPECIES. 


.    [CiiAr. 


icked  kinds  have  not  had  the  wing  modified.    Such  an  ene- 
my occasioning  increased  i:)Owers  of  iliglit,  or  rapidity  in 


0DTLINE8  OP  WINOS  OP  BUTTEBFLIES    OF  CELEBES   COMPABED  WITH  THOSE    OF   ALLIED 

U1>ECIK3   KmEWilEUE. 

Outer  outlino,  Papilio  giyoti,  of  Colcbca.  Inner  oiitlluo,  P.  deinollon,  of  Blnfjaporo 
and  Juva. — 2.  Outer  outliiu',  I',  milctun,  of  (/'ulchua.  Inner  outlino,  /'.  Hiirpedoii 
India. — 3.  Outer  outline,  Tadii/rU  zcirinda^  Celebes.     Inner  outlino,  T.  nero. 


turning,  he  adds,  "  one  would  naturally  suppose  to  be  an 
insectivorous  bird ;  but  it  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  most  of 
the  genera  of  fly-catchers  of  Borneo  and  Juva   on  ihe  one 


III.]        INDKrENDENT   SIMILARITIES  OF   STIIUCTUUE.        101 

side,  and  of  the  Moluccas  on  tlie  other,  are  ahnost  entirely 
absent  from  Celebes.  Their  place  seems  to  be  supplied  by 
the  caterpillar-catchers,  of  which  six  or  seven  species  are 
known  from  Celebes,  and  are  very  numerous  in  individuals. 
Wc  have  no  positive  evidence  that  these  birds  j)ursue  but- 
terflies on  the  wing,  but  it  is  highly  probable  that  they  do 
so  when  other  food  is  scarce.  Mr.  Bates  suggested  to  me 
that  the  larger  dragon-flies  prey  upon  butterflies,  but  I  did 
not  notice  that  they  were  more  abundant  in  Celebes  than 
elsewhere."  ** 

Now,  every  opinion  or  conjecture  of  Mr.  Wallace  is 
worthy  of  respectful  and  attentive  consideration,  but  the 
explanation  suggested  and  before  referred  to  hardly  seems 
a  satisfactory  one.  What  the  past  fauna  of  Celebes  may 
liave  been  is  as  yet  conjectural.  Mr.  Wallace  tells  us  that 
now  there  is  a  remarkable  scarcity  of  fly-cat<?hers,  and  that 
their  place  is  supplied  by  birds  of  which  it  can  only  be  said 
that  it  is  "highly  probable"  that  they  chase  butterflies 
"  when  other  food  is  scarce."  The  quick  eye  of  Mr.  Wal- 
lace failed  to  detect  them  in  the  act,  as  also  to  note  any 
unusual  abundance  of  other  insectivorous  forms,  which 
therefore,  considering  Mr.  Wallace's  zeal  and  powers  of 
observation,  we  may  conclude  do  not  exist.  Moreover, 
even  if  there  ever  has  been  an  abundance  of  such,  it  is  by 
no  means  certain  that  they  would  have  succeeded  in  pro- 
ducing the  conformation  in  question,  for  the  effect  of  this 
peculiar  curvature  on  flight  is  by  no  means  clear.  Wc  have 
here,  then,  a  structure  hypothetically  explained  by  an  un- 
certain property  induced  by  a  cause  the  presence  of  which 
is  only  conjectural. 

Surely  it  is  not  unreasonable  to  class  this  instance  with 
the  others  before  given,  in  which  a  common  modification  of 
form  or  color  coexists  with  a  certain  geographical  distribu- 
tion quite  independently  of  the  destructive  agencies  of  ani- 

»"  Natural  Selection,"  p.  177. 


102  THE    GENESIS   OF   SPECIES.  [Chap. 

mals.  If  physical  causes  connected  Avitli  locality  can  abbre- 
viate or  anniliilate  the  tails  of  certain  butterlhes,  why  niay 
not  similar  causes  produce  an  elbow-like  j)roniinence  on  the 
wings  of  other  butterllies  ?  Tiiere  are  many  such  instances 
of  sinujltaneous  modification.  Mr.  Darwin  himself"*  quotes 
Mr.  Gould  as  believing-  tliat  birds  of  the  same  species  are 
more  briglitly  colored  under  a  clear  alm{)sj)here,  than  when 
living  ou  islands  or  near  tlie  coast.  Mj-.  Darwin  also  in- 
forms us  that  AN'^ollaston  is  convinced  that  residence  near 
the  sea  affects  the  color  of  insects  ;  and  linallj',  that  ^locpiin- 
Tandon  gives  a  list  of  plants  which,  when  growing  near  the 
sea-shore,  have  their  leaves  in  some  degree  fleshy,  though 
not  so  elsewhere.  In  his  work  on  "  Animals  and  Plants 
imder  Domestication,"^"  Mr.  Darwin  refers  to  M.  Costa  as 
having  (in  JJuIl.  de  la  Soc.  Imp.  iVAcclunat.^  tome  viii.,  p. 
351)  stated  that  "young  shells  taken  from  tlie  shores  of 
England  and  placed  in  the  Mediterranean  at  once  altered 
tlieir  manner  of  growth,  and  formed  prominent  diverging 
rays  like  those  on  the  shells  of  the  proper  Mediterranean 
oyster  ;''^  also  to  ^Mr.  Meehan,  as  stating  (Proc.  Acad.  JVat. 
jSc.  of  Philadelphiaj  Jan.  28, 1802)  that  "  twenty-nine  kinds 
of  American  trees  all  diller  from  tlieir  nearest  Em-opean 
allies  in  a  similar  manner,  leaves  less  toothed,  buds  and 
seeds  smaller,  fewer  branchlets,"  etc.  These  are  striking 
examples  indeed  ! 

But  cases  of  simultaneous  and  similar  modifications 
abound  on  all  sides.  Even  as  regards  our  own  species 
there  is  a  very  generally  admitted  opinion  that  a  new  type 
has  been  developed  in  the  United  States,  and  this  in  al)out 
a  couple  of  centuries  only,  and  in  a  vast  nndtitude  of  in- 
dividuals of  diverse  ancestry.  The  instances  here  given, 
liowever,  nujst  sullicc,  though  more  could  easily  be  added. 

It  may  be  well  now  to  turn  to  grouj:)S  presenting  similar 
variations,  not  through,  but  independently  of,  geographical 

»  "  Origin  of  Species,"  5th  edit.,  p.  166.  ^^  Vol.  ii.,  p.  280. 


IIJ.]        INDEPENDENT   SIMILARITIES   OF   STRUCTURE.        103 

distribution,  and,  as  far  as  we  know,  independently  of  con- 
ditions other  tlian  some  peculiar  nature  and  tendency  (as 
yet  unexplained)  common  to  members  of  such  groups, 
which  nature  and  tendency  seem  to  induce  them  to  vary  in 
certain  definite   lines  or  directions  which   are  difTcl-ent  in 


THK   GREAT  SHIELDED  GRASSHOri'EU. 


different  groups.  Thus  v.'ith  regard  to  the  grouj)  of  in- 
sects, of  which  the  walking  leaf  is  a  member,  Mr.  Wallace 
observes:^*  "The  mhole  family "^"^  of  the  Phasmidae,  or 
spectres,  to  which  this  insect  belongs,  is  more  or  less  imi- 
tative, and  a  great  number  of  the  species  are  called  *  walk- 
ing-stick insects,'  from  their  singular  resemblance  to  twigs 
and  branches." 

Again,  Mr.  Wallace  "  tells  us  of  no  less  than  four  kinds 

'1  See  "  Naturnl  Selection,"  p.  G4. 
**  Tiie  Italics  arc  not  ]\lr.  Wallace's. 

'•■'  "Malay  Archipelago,"  vol.  ii.,  p.  150;  and  "Natural  Selection,"  p. 
101. 


104 


TIIK   GENESIS   OF   SPECIES. 


[Ciur. 


of  orioles,  which  birds  mimic,  more  or  less,  four  species  of  a 
genus  of  lioney-suckeis,  tlie  weak  orioles  liiuliiig'  their  prolit 
in  being  mistaken  by  certain  birds  of  prey  fur  the  strong, 
active,  and  gregarious  huney-suckers.  Now,  many  other 
birds  would  be  benefited  by  similar  mimicry,  which  is  none 
the  less  confmed,  in  this  part  of  the  world,  to  the  oriole 
genus.  It  is  true  that  the  absence  of  mimicry  in  otlici- 
forms  may  be  explained  by  their  possessing  some  other  (as 


Qr^ 


TlIK  8IX-BUAFTEU>   BIRD  OF  PARADIBIS. 


yet  unobserved)  means  of  preservation.  But  it  is  neverthe- 
less remarkable,  not  so  much  that  on(;  species  shouhl  mimic, 
as  that  no  less  than  four  should  do  so  in  diHerent  ways  and 
degrees,  all  these  four  belonging  to  one  and  the  same  genus. 
In  other  cases,  however,  there  is  not  even  the  help  of 
protective  action  to  account  for  the  phenomenon.  Thus  we 
have  the  wonderful  birds  of  Paradise,"  which  agree  in  de- 

^*  See  "Malay  Archipelago,"  vol.  ii.,  chap,  xxxviii. 


III.]       INDEPENDENT  SIMILARITIES  OF  STRUCTUKE.       105 

veloping  plumage  imcquallcd  in  beauty,  but  a  beauty 
wliicli,  as  to  details,  is  of  different  kinds,  and  produced  in 
different  Avays  in  different  species.  To  develop  "beauty 
and  singularity  of  plumage  "  is  a  character  of  the  group, 
but  not  of  any  one  definite  kind,  to  be  explained  merely  by 
inheritance. 

Again,  we  have  the  very  curious  horned  flies,"  which 


THE  LONO-TAILED   niUD   OF  rARAPISE. 


agree  indeed  m  a  common  peculiarity,  but  in  one  singularly 
different  in  detail,  in  different  species,  and  not  known  to 
have  any  protecting  effect. 

Among  plants,  also,  we  meet  with  the  same  peculiarity. 
The  great  group  of  Orchids  presents  a  number  of  species 


S6  Loc.  cit.,  p.  3H. 


106 


THE  GENESIS  OF  SPECIES. 


[Ciup. 


THE   RhD   UIKD   OF   PARADlHt:. 


whicli  olTcr  strange 
and  bizarre  aj)j)rox- 
inialions  to  dillcr- 
cnt  animal  Ibrins, 
and  Avliidi  liave 
often  the  appear- 
ance of  cases  of 
mimicry,  as  it  were 
in  an  incipient 
stage. 

The  nnniber  of 
siinihir  instances 
which  conld  be 
brought  fur\\artl 
from  among  ani- 
mals and  ])lants  is 
vtiry  great  bnt  the 
examj)les  given  are, 


Ul.J        INDEPENDENT   SlMILAIilTlES   OF  STRUCTURE.        107 

it  is  liojicd,  .'nTij)ly  sunicient  to  point  toward  tlic  conclusion 
which  other  facts  will,  it  is  thought,  establish,  viz.,  that 


nOKNED  KLIKS. 


there  arc  causes  operatin£r  (in  the  evocation  of  these  har- 
monious diverging  resemblances)  other  than  "Natural  Se- 


THR  MAGNIFICENT  nmO  OF  rAEAmSE. 


Icclion,"  or  liercdity, and  other  even  than  merely  gcograi)h- 
ical,  climatal,  or  any  sini])ly  external  conditions. 


108  THE  GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Ciui-. 

Many  cases  liave  been  adduced  of  strikiiirr  likenesses 
between  dinbrent  animals,  not  due  to  inheritance;  but  this 
should  be  the  less  surprising,  in  that  the  very  same  indi- 
vidual presents  us  with  likenesses  between  dill'erent  parts 
of  its  body  (e.  g.,  between  the  several  joints  of  the  back- 
bone), which  are  certainly  not  so  explicable.  This,  how- 
ever, leads  to  a  rather  large  subject,  wiiich  will  be  s})oken 
of  in  the  eighth  chapter  of  the  present  work.  Here  it  will 
be  enough  to  allirm  (leaving  the  proof  of  the  assertion  till 
later)  that  parts  are  often  liomologous  which  have  no  di- 
rect genetic  relationship — a  fact  which  harmonizes  well 
with  the  other  facts  here  given,  but  which  "  Natural  Se- 
lection," pure  and  simple,  seems  unable  to  explain. 

But  surely  the  independent  appearance  of  similar  or- 
ganic forms  is  what  we  might  expect,  a  j^i'^orl^  from  the 
independent  appearance  of  similar  inorganic  ones.  As  Mr. 
G.  II.  Lewes  well  observes:^*  "  We  do  not  suppose  the  (;ar- 
bonates  and  phosphates  found  in  various  parts  of  the  globe 
— we  do  not  suppose  that  the  families  of  alkaloids  and 
salts  have  any  nearer  kinship  than  that  which  consists  in 
the  similarity  of  their  elements,  and  the  conditions  of  their 
combination.  Hence,  in  organisms,  as  in  salts,  morpho- 
logical identity  may  be  due  to  a  comnumily  of  casual  con- 
nection, rather  than  conununity  of  descent. 

"Mr.  Darwin  justly  holds  it  to  be  incredible  that  indi- 
viduals identically  the  same  should  have  been  produced 
through  Natural  Selection  from  parents  specl/icallij  dis- 
tinct^ but  he  will  not  deny  that  identical  forms  may  issue 
from  parents  genetically  distinct^  when  these  parent  forms 
and  the  conditions  of  production  are  identical.  To  deny 
this  would  be  to  deny  the  law  of  causation." 

Prof.  Huxley  has,  however,  suggested  ^^  that  such  min- 
eral identity  may  be  explained  by  ap})lying  also  to  minerals 

26  Fortnightly  Review,  New  Series,  vol.  iii.  (April,  18G8),  p.  3*72. 
"  "  Lay  Sermons,"  p.  339, 


III.]         INDEPENDENT   SIMILARITIES   OF  STRUCTURE.        IQO 

a  law  of  (loscciit;  tliat  is,  by  considering  such  similar  forms 
as  the  descendants  of  atoms  which  inhabited  one  special 
part  of  the  j)rimitive  nebular  cosmos,  each  considerable 
space  of  which  may  be  supposed  to  have  been  under  the 
influence  of  somewhat  different  conditions. 

Surely,  however,  there  can  be  no  real  parity  between 
the  relationship  of  existing  minerals  to  nebular  atoms,  and 
the  relationship  of  existing  animals  and  plants  to  the  ear- 
liest organisms.  In  the  first  place,  the  latter  have  pro- 
duced others  by  generative  multiplication,  which  mineral 
atoms  nev^er  did.  In  the  second,  existing  animals  and 
plants  spring  from  the  living  tissues  of  preceding  animals 
and  plants,  while  existing  minerals  spring  from  the  chemi- 
cnl  afTinity  of  separate  elements.  Carbonate  of  soda  is  not 
formed,  by  a  j)rocess  of  reproduction,  from  other  carbonate 
of  soda,  but  directly  by  the  suitable  juxtaposition  of  car- 
bon, oxygen,  and  sodium. 

Instead  of  approximating  animals  and  minerals  in  the 
mode  suggested,  it  may  be  that  they  arc  to  be  approx- 
imated in  quite  a  contrary  fashion  ;  namely,  by  attributing 
to  mineral  species  an  internal  innate  power.  For,  as  we 
must  attribute  to  each  elementary  atom  an  innate  power 
and  tendency  to  form  (under  the  requisite  external  con- 
ditions) certain  unions  with  other  atoms,  so  we  may  at- 
tribute to  certain  mineral  species — as  crystals — an  innate 
power  and  tendency  to  exhibit  (the  proper  conditions  being 
suj)plicd)  a  definite  and  symmetrical  external  form.  The 
distinction  between  animals  and  vegetables  on  the  one 
hand,  and  minerals  on  the  other,  is  that,  while  in  the  or- 
ganic world  close  similarity  is  the  result  sometimes  of  in- 
heritance, sometimes  of  direct  production  independently 
of  parental  action,  in  the  inorganic  world  the  latter  is  the 
constant  and  only  mode  in  which  such  similarity  is  jiro- 
duced. 

When  wc  come  to  consider  the  relations  of  species  to 


110  TIIK   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

space — in  other  words,  the  geograj)hicjil  distribution  of 
organisms — it  will  be  necessar}'^  to  return  somewhat  to  the 
subject  of  the  independent  origin  of  ch^sely-similar  forms, 
in  reirard  to  which  some  additional  remarks  will  be  found 
toward  the  end  of  the  seventh  chapter. 

In  this  third  chapter  an  effort  has  been  made  to  show 
that  while  on  the  Darwinian  theory  concordant  variations 
are  extremelj'^  improbable,  yet  Nature  ])resents  us  with 
abundant  examj)les  of  such  ;  the  most  striking  of  which 
are,  jierhaps,  the  higher  organs  of  sense.  Also  that  an  im- 
portant influence  is  exercised  by  conditions  connected  with 
geographical  distribution,  but  that  a  deeper-seated  influence 
is  at  work,  which  is  hinted  at  by  those  special  tendencies 
in  definite  directions,  which  are  the  properties  of  certain 
groups.  Finally,  that  these  facts,  when  taken  together, 
afford  strong  evidence  that  "Natural  Selection"  has  not 
been  the  exclusive  or  predominant  cause  of  the  various  or- 
ganic structural  peculiarities.  This  conclusion  has  also 
been  reiinforced  by  the  consideration  of  jjlienomena  pre- 
sented to  us  b}'  the  inorganic  world. 


IV.]  MINUTE   MODIFICATIONS.  m 


CHAPTER  IV. 

MINUTE    AND    GRADUAL   MODIFICATIONS. 

Thorc^nrc  DifnctiUios  ns  to  Minuto  Modificntlons,  ercn  if  not  fortuitous. — Examples  of 
Huddon  nrul  ConsidoraMo  Mo<lincntions  of  DlfTorcnt  Kinds. — Prof.  Owen's  View. — 
Mr.  Wnli.ico. — IVof  IIiixlov. — Olijerlioiis  to  Bnddon  ('li.in^'e.i. — I>nl)yrinthodont. — 
roKo.— Otncen.— .\h  to  Orlfjln  of  IMrtl's  Wing.— Tendril.s  of  Cliinl)lnt,'  rinnt.**.— 
Aniiiifils  onro  supposed  to  bo  Connectlnp  LInk.i. — Ktirly  Ppoelnll/jition  of  Structure. 
— Africmuchenln. — (jlypto<lon. — Sabro-toothod  Tiger. — Conclusion. 

Not  only  are  tliere  good  reasons  against  the  acceptance 
of  the  exclusive  operation  of  "  Natural  Selection "  as  the 
one  means  of  specific  origination,  but  there  are  difficulties 
in  the  way  of  accounting  for  such  origination  by  the  sole 
action  of  modifications  which  are  infinitesimal  and  minute, 
whether  fortuitous  or  not. 

Arguments  may  yet  be  advanced  in  favor  of  the  view 
that  new  species  have  from  time  to  time  manifested  them- 
selves with  suddenness,  and  by  modifications  appearing  at 
once  (as  great  in  degree  as  are  those  which  separate  IIlp- 
parion  from  J^qicus),  the  species  remaining  stable  in  the 
intervals  of  such  modifications  :  by  stable  being  meant  that 
their  variations  only  extend  for  a  certain  degree  in  various 
directions,  like  oscillations  in  a  stable  equilibrium.  This 
is  the  conception  of  Mr.  Galton,'  who  compares  the  devel- 
opment of  species  with  a  many-facetted  spheroid  tumbling 
over  from  one  facet,  or  stable  equilibrium,  to  another,  llic 
existence  of  internal  conditions  in  animals  corresponding 

'  "  Hereditary  Genius,  an  Inquiry  into  its  Laws,"  etc.     By  Francis 
tJalton,  F.  R.  S.     (London  :  Macinillan.) 


112  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

witli  such  facets  is  denied  by  pure  Darwinians,  but  it  is 
contended  in  this  work,  though  not  in  this  chapter,  tliat 
something  nuiy  also  be  said  for  their  existence. 

Tiie  considerations  brought  forward  in  the  last  two 
chapters,  namely,  the  dilliculties  with  regard  to  incipient 
and  closely-similar  structures  respectively,  together  with 
paleonlological  considerations  to  be  noticed  later,  appear 
to  point  strongly  in  the  direction  of  sudden  and  consider- 
able changes.  This  is  notably  the  case  as  regards  the 
young  oysters  already  mentioned,  which  were  taken  from 
the  shores  of  England  and  placed  in  the  Mediterranean, 
and  at  once  altered  their  mode  of  growth  and  formed 
prominent  diverging  rays,  like  those  of  the  proper  Mediter- 
ranean oyster^  as  also  the  twenty-nine  kinds  of  American 
trees,  all  differing  from  their  nearest  European  allies  siiui- 
larlxj — "  leaves  less  toothed,  buds  and  seeds  smaller,  fewer 
branchlets,"  etc.  To  these  may  be  added  other  facts  given 
by  Mr.  Darwin.  Thus  he  says,  that  "  climate,  to  a  certain 
extent,  directly  modifies  the  form  of  dogs."  ^ 

The  licv.  U.  Everett  found  (hat  setters  at  Delhi,  though 
most  caiefully  paired,  yet  had  young  with  "  nostiils  more 
contracted,  noses  more  pointed,  size  inferior,  and  limbs 
more  slender."  Again,  cats  at  Mond)as,  on  the  coast  of 
Africa,  have  short,  stilf  hau'S,  instead  of  fur;  and  a  cat  at 
Algoa  Bay,  when  left  only  eight  weeks  at  Mombas,  "  un- 
derwent a  complete  metamorphosis,  having  parted  with  its 
sandy-colored  fur."  ^  The  conditions  of  life  seem  to  pro- 
duce a  considerable  eftect  on  horses,  and  instances  are 
given  by  Mr.  Darwin  of  pony  breeds*  having  independent- 
ly arisen  in  dilferent  parts  of  the  world,  possessing  a  cer- 
tain similarity  in  their  physical  conditions.  Also  changes 
due  to  climate  may  be  brought  about  at  once  in  a  second 
generation,  though  no  appreciable   modification   is  shown 

'  "Animals  and  Plants  under  Domestication,"  vol.  i.,  p.  37. 
«  Ibid.,  p.  47.  ^  Ibid.,  p.  52. 


IV.]  MINUTE    MODIFICATIONS.  .      II3 

by  tlic  first.  Tims  "  Sir  Cliarlcs  Lyell  mentions  that  some 
Englislimon,  ciig.ngcd  in  conducting  the  operations  of  the 
Real  del  Monte  Company  in  Mexico,  carried  out  with  them 
some  greyhounds,  of  the  best  breed,  to  hunt  tlie  liares  -which 
aboiHid  in  that  country.  It  was  found  that  the  greyhounds 
could  not  sujiport  the  fatigues  of  a  long  chase  in  this  at- 
teruiatcd  alniosphere,  and,  before  they  could  come  up  with 
their  prey,  tliey  lay  down  gasping  for  breath  ;  but  these 
same  animals  have  produced  whelps,  which  have  grown  up, 
and  are  not  in  the  least  degree  incommoded  by  the  want 
of  density  in  the  air,  but  run  down  the  hares  with  as  much 
case  as  do  the  fleetest  of  their  race  in  this  country."  * 

We  have  here  no  action  of  "Natural  Selection;"  it 
was  not  that  certain  puppies  happened  accidentally  to  bo 
capable  of  enduring  more  rarefied  air,  and  so  survived,  but 
the  offspring  were  directly  modified  by  the  action  of  sur- 
rounding conditions.  Neither  was  the  change  elaborated 
by  minute  modifications  in  many  successive  generations, 
but  appeared  at  once  in  the  second. 

With  n^gard  once  more  to  sudden  alterations  of  form, 
Nathusius  is  said  to  state  positively  as  to  pigs,"  that  the  re- 
sult of  common  experience  and  of  his  experiments  was  that 
rich  and  abundant  food,  given  during  youth,  tends  by  some 
direct  action  to  make  the  head  broader  and  shorter.  Curi- 
ous jaw  appendages  often  characterize  Normandy  pigs,  ac- 
cording to  M.  Eudes  Deslongchamps.  Richardson  figures 
these  appendages  on  the  old  "  Irish  greyhound  pig,"  and 
they  are  said  by  Nathusius  to  appear  occasionally  in  all  the 
long-eared  races.  Mr.  Darwin  observ^es,'  "  As  no  wild  pigs 
are  known  to  have  analogous  appendages,  we  have  at  pres- 
ent no  reason  to  siij^pose  that  their  appearance  is  due  to 

'  Carpenter's  "  Comparative  Physiology,"  p.  98Y,  quoted  by  Mr.  J.  J. 
Murphy,  "  Habit  and  Intelligence,"  vol.  i.,  p,  171. 

•  "  Animals  and  I'lants  under  Domestication,"  vol.  i.,  p.  72. 
'  Ibid.,  p.  70. 


114     .  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

reversion ;  and  if  this  be  so,  wo  arc  forced  to  admit  tha 
somewhat  comj)lex,  thougli  a{)parently  useless  structures 
may  be  suddenly  developed  without  the  aid  of  selection." 
Again,  "  Climate  directly  affects  the  thickness  of  the  skin 
and  hair"  of  cattle."  In  the  English  climate  an  individual 
Porto  Santo  rabbit'  recovered  the  proper  color  of  its  fur  in 
rather  less  than  four  years.  The  ell'ect  of  the  climate  of 
India  on  the  turkey  is  cinisiderable.  Mr.  IJlyth  '"  describes 
it  as  being  much  degenerated  in  size,  "  utterly  incapable 
of  rising  on  the  wing,"  of  a  black  color,  and  "  with  long 
pendulous  appendages  over  the  beak  enormously  de- 
veloped." Mr.  Darwin  again  tells  us  that  there  has  sud- 
denly appeared  in  a  bed  of  common  broccoli  a  peculiar  va- 
riety, faithfully  transmitting  its  newly-ac(|uircd  and  remark- 
able characters  ;  **  also  that  there  have  been  a  rapid  trans- 
formation and  transplantation  of  American  varieties  of 
maize  with  a  European  variety  ;  '^  that  certainly  "  the  An- 
con  and  Manchamp  breeds  of  sheep,"  and  that  (all  but  cer- 
tainly) Niata  cattle,  turnspit  and  pug  dogs,  jumper  and 
frizzled  fowls,  sh(jrt-faced  tuml)ler  j)igeons,  hook-billed 
ducks,  etc.,  and  a  multitude  of  vegetable  varieties,  have 
suddenly  ai)peared  in  nearly  the  same  state  as  we  now  see 
them."  Lastly,  Mr.  Darwin  tells  us  that  there  has  been 
an  occasional  development  (in  five  distinct  cases)  in  Eng- 
land of  the  "japanned"  or  "black-shouldered  peacock," 
(Pavo  Qiigripennis)^  a  distinct  species,  according  to  Dr. 
Sclater,'*  yet  arising  in  Sir  J.  Trevelyan's  flock  composed 
entirely  of  the  common  kind,  and  increasing,  "  to  the  extinc- 
tion of  the 2yrevioi(slt/-existin(f  breeds  ^^  Mr.  Darwin's  only 
explanation  of  the  phenomena  (on   the  supposition  of  the 

*  "Animals  anil  Plants  unilcr  Domestication,"  vol.  i.,  p.  7  1. 

»  Ibid.,  p.  lU.  »"  t^iutcd,  iliid.,  p.  274.  "  ll»iil.,  p.  :i21. 

'2  Ibid.,  p.  322.  13  Ibid.,  vol.  ii.,  p.  411. 

"  Proc.  Zool.  Soo.  of  Loudon,  April  21,  1800. 

'*  "  Animals  and  Plants  under  Domestication,"  vol.  i.,  p.  291. 


IV.]  MINUTE  MODIFICATIONS.  II5 

species  being  distinct)  is  by  reversion,  owing  to  a  supposed 
ancestral  cross.  But  he  candidly  admits,  "I  have  heard  of 
no  other  such  case  in  the  animal  or  vegetable  kingdom." 
On  the  suj)i)osition  of  its  being  only  a  variety,  he  observes, 
"Tlie  case  is  the  most  remarkable  ever  recorded  of  the 
abnipt  appearance  of  a  new  form,  which  so  closely  re- 
sembles a  true  species,  that  it  luis  deceived  one  of  the  most 
experienced  of  living  ornithologists." 

As  to  plants,  M.  0.  Naudin '"  has  given  the  following 
instances  of  the  sudden  origination  of  apparently  perma- 
nent forms :  "  The  first  case  mentioned  is  that  of  a  poppy, 
which  took  on  a  remarkable  variation  in  its  fruit — a  crown 
of  se(X)ndary  cnpsules  being  ad(k)d  to  the  normal  ceniral 
capsule.  A  fi(^hl  of  such  ])oppies  was  grown,  and  M.  G()p- 
pert,  with  seed  from  this  field,  obtained  still  this  monstrous 
form  in  great  cpiantity.  Deformities  of  ferns  are  sometimes 
sought  after  by  fern-growers.  They  are  now  always  ob- 
tained by  taking  spores  from  the  abnormal  parts  of  the 
monstrous  fern  ;  from  which  spores  ferns  presenting  the 
same  peculiarities  invariably  grow.  .  .  .  The  most  remark- 
a])le  case  is  that  observed  by  Dr.  Godron,  of  Nancy.  In 
18G1  that  botanist  observed,  among  a  sowing  of  Datura 
tatula^  the  fruits  of  which  are  very  spinous,  a  single  indi- 
vidual of  which  the  capsule  was  perfectly  smooth.  The 
seeds  taken  from  this  plant  all  furnished  plants  having  the 
character  of  this  individual.  The  fifth  and  sixth  generations 
are  now  growing  without  exhibiting  the  least  tendency  to 
revert  to  the  spinous  form.  More  remarkable  still,  wdien 
crossed  with  the  normal  Datura  tatula,  hybrids  were  pro- 
duced, which,  in  the  second  generation,  reverted  to  the 
original  types,  as  true  hybrids  do." 

There  are,  then,  al)undant  instances  to  prove  that  con- 
siderable modifications  may  suddenly  develop   themselves, 

'«  Extracted  by  J.  J.  Murphy,  vol.  !.,  p.  lOV,  from  the  Quarterly  Jour- 
nal  of  Science,  of  October,  186Y,  p.  527. 


IIG  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Ciur. 

cither  due  to  external  conditions  or  to  o])scurc  internal 
causes  in  the  org-anisnis  which  exhibit  them.  Moreover, 
these  niodilications,  from  whatever  cause  arising,  are  capa- 
ble of  reproduction — the  modified  individuals  "  breeding- 
true." 

The  question  is,  whether  new  species  have  been  de- 
velo})ed  by  non-fortuitous  variations  which  are  insign ill- 
cant  and  minute,  or  whether  such  variati(.)ns  have  been 
comparativel}'  sudden,  and  of  appreciable  size  and  impor- 
tance ?  Either  h}'^:)othesis  will  suit  the  views  here  main- 
tained equally  well  (those  views  being  opposed  only  to  for- 
tuitous, indefinite  variations),  but  the  latter  is  the  more  re- 
mote from  the  Darwinian  conception,  and  yet  has  much  to 
be  said  in  its  favor. 

Prof.  Owen  considers,  with  regard  to  specific  origina- 
tion, that  natural  history  "  teaches  that  the  cliange  would 
be  sudden  and  considerable :  it  opposes  the  idea  that 
species  are  transmitted  by  minute  and  slow  degrees." " 
"  An  innate  tendency  to  deviate  from  parental  type,  oper- 
ating through  })eriods  of  adequate  duration,"  being  "  the 
most  ])robable  nature,  or  way  of  operation  of  the  secondary 
law,  whereby  species  have  been  derived  one  from  the 
other."  '' 

Now,  considering  the  number  of  instances  adduced  of 
sudden  modifications  in  domestic  animals,  it  is  somewhat 
startling  to  meet  with  Mr  Darwin's  dogmatic  assertion 
that  it  is  "a  Jalse  belief^''  that  natural  species  have  often 
originated  in  the  same  abrupt  manner.  The  belief  ?nai/  be 
false,  but  it  is  dillicult  to  see  how  its  falsehood  can  be  i)osi- 
tively  asserted. 

It  is  demonstrated  by  Mr.  Darwin's  careful  weighings 
and  measurements  that,  though  little-used  parts  in  donies- 
tic  animals  get  reduced  in   weight   and   somewhat  in  size, 

"  "Anatomy  of  Vertebrates,"  vol.  iii,,  p.  795. 
>8  Ibid.,  p.  807. 


IV.]  MINUTE   MODIFICATIONS.  1x7 

yd  that  thoy  show  no  inclination  to  become  truly  "  rudi- 
mentary structures."  Accordingly  he  asserts  "  that  such 
rudimentary  parts  are  formed  "suddenly  by  arrest  of  de- 
velopment "  in  domesticated  animals,  but  in  wild  animals 
slowly.  Tlie  latter  assertion,  however,  is  a  me7'e  assertion  ; 
necessary,  perhaps,  for  the  theory  of  "  Natural  Selection," 
but  as  yet  unj)roved  by  facts. 

J3ut  why  should  not  these  changes  take  place  suddenly 
in  a  state  of  nature?  As  Mr.  Murjihy  says,"  "  Jt  may  l)e 
true  that  we  have  no  evidence  of  the  origin  of  wild  species 
in  this  way.  But  this  is  not  a  case  in  which  negative  evi- 
dence proves  any  thing.  We  have  never  witnessed  the 
origin  of  a  wild  species  by  any  process  whatever;  and  if  a 
species  were  to  come  suddenly  into  being  in  the  wild  state, 
as  the  Ancon  Sheep  did  under  domestication,  how  could  you 
ascertain  the  fact?  If  the  first  of  a  newly-begotten  species 
were  found,  the  fact  of  its  discovery  would  tell  nothing 
about  its  origin.  Naturalists  would  register  it  as  a  very 
rare  species,  having  been  only  once  met  with,  but  they 
would  have  no  means  of  knowing  wdiether  it  were  the  first 
or  the  last  of  its  race." 

'Vo  this  Mr.  Wallace  has  replied  (in  his  review  of  Mr. 
Murphy's  work  in  JVafttre^^),  by  objecting  that  sudden 
chajiges  could  very  rarely  be  useful,  because  each  kind  of 
animal  is  a  nicely-balanced  and  adjusted  whole,  any  one 
sudden  modification  of  which  would  in  most  cases  be  hurt- 
ful unless  accompanied  by  other  simultaneous  and  harmoni- 
ous modifications,  Tf,  however,  it  is  not  unlikelv  that  there 
is  an  innate  tendency  to  deviate  at  certain  times,  and  under 
certain  conditions,  it  is  no  more  unlikely  that  that  innate 
tendency  should  be  a  harmonious  one,  calculated  to  simul- 
taneously adjust  the  various  parts  of  the  organism  to  their 

"  "Animals  and  Plants  under  Domestication,"  vol.  ii.,  p.  318. 
5"  "  Habit  and  Intellifrcnce,"  vol.  i.,  p.  344. 
5'  See  December  2,  18(50,  vol.  i.,  p.  132. 


118 


THE  GExNESIS  OF  SPECIES. 


[Chap. 


new  relations.     Tlie  objection  as  to  the  sudden  abortion  of 
rudimentary  organs  may  be  similarly  met. 

Prof.  Huxley  seems  now  disposed  to  accei)t  the,  at  least 
occasional,  intervention  of  sudden  and  considerable  varia- 
tions.     In  his  review  of  Prof.  KoUiker's'^"^  criticisms,   he 


MUOM   ENLAn'JED   HORIZONTAL   SECTION   OF  THE   TOOTH   OF  A   I.AUYRINTIIODON. 


himself  says,  ""  We  greatly  suspect  that  she"  (i.  o.,  Na- 
ture) "does  make  consideiable  jumps  in  ilio  way  of  varia- 
tion now  and   then,   and   Ihat  these  saltations   give   rise  to 

**  "  O'bcr    die    Parwin'schc    SelKipfunf^stlicorie : "  eiii   Vortrac^,    von 
Kiillikcr;   Leipzi-,',  18t>l.  ''•'  Se;i  "  Lay  Sennons,"  p.  31ii. 


IV.)  MINUTE   MODIFICATIOXS.  119 

some  of  llio  g.'ips   which  appear  to  exist  in  the  series  of 
known  forms." 

In  addition  to  the  instances  brought  forward  in  the 
second  chapter  against  the  minute  action  of  Natural  Selec- 
tion, may  be  mentioned  such  structures  as  the  wonderfully 
folded  teeth  of  the  labyrinthodonts.  The  marvellously  com- 
plex structure  of  these  organs  is  not  merely  unaccountable 
as  due  to  "  Natural  Selection,"  but  its  production  by  insig- 
nificant increments  of  complexity  is  hardly  less  dillicult  to 
comprehend. 

Similarly  the  aborted  index  of  the  Potto  [Perodicticiis) 
is  a  structure  not  likely  to  have  been  induced  by  minute 
changes;  wliile,  as  to  "Natural  Selection,"  the  reduction 
of  the  fore-lingc^r  to  a  mere  rudiment  is  inexplicable  in- 
deed I     "  How  this  mutilation  can  have  aided  in  the  strug- 


HAND  OF  TUB  POTTO   (PERODICTICUR),   FROM   LIFE. 

gle  for  life,  we  must  confess,  bani<\s  our  co!ijecturcs  on  the 
subject ;  for  that  any  very  appreciable  gain  to  the  individual 
can  have  resulted  from  the  slightly-lesseired  degree  of  re- 
quired nourishment  thence  resulting  (i.  e.,  from  the  suppres- 
sion), seems  to  us  to  be  an  almost  absurd  proposition."" 

Again,  to  anticipate  somewhat,  the  great  group  of 
whales  (Cetacea)  was  fully  developed  at  the  deposition 
of  the  Eocene  strata.  On  the  other  hand,  we  may  pretty 
safely  conclude  that  these  animals  were  absent  as  late  as 

'■^  *'  Anatomy  of  the  Lcmuroidca,"  by  James   Muric,  M.  D.,  and  St. 
George  Mivart.     Trana.  Zool.  80c.,  Marcli,  18G0,  p.  01 


/ 


120  THE   GENESIS   OF  SrECIES.  [Chai'. 

the  latest  sccondury  rocks,  so  tliat  their  developineut  could 
not  have  been  so  very  blow,  unless  geological  time  is  (al- 
though we  shall  j^resenlly  see  there  are  grounds  to  believe 
it  is  not)  practically  inilnite.  It  is  quite  true  that  it  is,  iu 
general,  very  unsafe  to  infer  the  absence  of  any  animal 
forms  during  a  certain  geological  i)eriotl,  because  no  re- 
mains of  them  have  as  yet  been  found  in  the  strata  then  de- 
posited :  but  in  the  case  of  the  Cetacea  it  is  safe  to  do  so ; 
for,  as  Sir  Charles  Lyell  remarks,'' they  are  animals,  the  re- 
mains of  which  are  singularly  likely  to  have  been  preserved 
had  they  existed,  in  the  same  way  that  the  remains  were 


J^"^' 


BKELETON   OF   A    PLESIOBAVBCB. 


preserved  of  the  Ichthyosauri  and  Plesiosauri,  which  ap- 
pear to  have  represented  the  Cetacea  during  the  secondary 
geological  period. 

As  another  example,  let  us  take  the  origin  of  wings, 
such  as  exist  in  birds.  Here  we  find  an  arm,  the  bones  of 
the  baud  of  which  are  atrophied  and  reduced  in  number,  as 
compared  with  those  of  most  other  Vcrt(ibrat(is.  Now,  if 
the  wing  arose  from  a  terrestrial  or  subaOrial  organ,  this 
abortion  of  the  bones  could  hardly  hav(;  been  scrvi(;(Md)l(; — 
hardly  have  j)rcserved  individuals  iu  the  struggle  for  life. 
If  it  arose  from  an  aquatic  organ,  like  the  wing  of  the  pen- 
guin, we  have  then  a  singular  divergence  from  the  ordinary 

25  <i  Principles  of  Geology,"  last  edition,  vol.  i,,  p.  103. 


IV.] 


MINUTE   MODIFICATIONS. 


121 


vertebrate  fin-limb.  In  the  ichth3''osauriis,  in  the  plesio 
saiirus,  in  the  whales,  in  the  porpoises,  in  the  seals,  and  in 
otliers,  Ave  have  shortening-  of  the  bones,  but  no  reduction 
in  the  number  citlicr  of  the  fnigers  or  of  their  joints,  which 
are,  on  the  contrary,  multiplied  in  Cetacea  and  the  ichthyo- 
saurus. And  ev(Mi  in  (he  turtles  we  have  eight  carpal 
bones  and  five  digits,  while  no  finger  has  less  than  two 
phalanges.  It  is  diflicult,  then,  to  believe  that  the  Avian 
limb  was  developed  in  any  other  way  than  by  a  compara- 
tively sudden  modification  of  a  marked  and  important  kind. 
How,  once  more,  can  we  conceive  the  peculiar  actions 
of  the  tendrils  of  some  climbing-  plants  to  have  been  pro- 
duced by  minute  modifications  ?  These,  according  to  Mr. 
Darwin,"  oscillate  till  they  touch  an  object,  and  then  em- 
brace it.  It  is  stated  by  that  observer,  that  "a  thread 
weighing  no  more  than  the  thirty-second  of  a  grain,  if 
placed  on  the  tendril  of  the  JPassiJfora  gracilis^  will  cause 
it  to  bend ;  and  merely  to  touch  iho  tendril  with  a  twig 
causes  it  to  bend ;  but  if  the  twig  is  at  once  removed,  the 


SKELETON  OF  AN  lOIITIlTOBAURnS. 


tendril  soon  straightens  itself.  But  f^ie  contact  of  other 
tendrils  of  the  plant,  or  of  the  falling  of  drops  of  rain,  do 
not  produce  these  effects."^  B'.it  some  of  the  zoological  and 
anatomical  discoveries  of  la<.<'  years  tend  rather  to  dirniiiish 
than  to  augment  the  evidence  in  favor  of  minute  and  grad- 

5«  Quartcrh/ Journal  of  Science,  1866,  pp.  25Y,  268. 
"  "Habit  and  Intelligence,"  vol.  i.,  p.  178. 
0 


122 


THE  GENESIS  OF  SPECIES. 


[ClIAI-. 


ual  moclification.  Thus  all  naturalists  now  admit  that  cer- 
tain animals,  wliich  were  at  one  time  supposed  to  be  con- 
necting links  between  groups,  belong  altogether  to  one 
group,  and  not  at  all  to  the  other.  For  example,  the  aye- 
aye*"  (Chiromys  Madaya^carleiisis)  was  till  lately  con- 
sidered to  be  allied  to  the  scpiirrels,  and  was  often  classed 
with  them  in  the  rodent  order,  principally  on  account  of  its 
dentition";  at  the  same  time  that  its  ailinities  to  the  lemurs 
and  apes  were  admitted.     The  thorough  investigation  into 


TllE  AVE-AYE. 


its  anatomy  that  has  now  been  made,  demonstrates  that  it 
has  no  more  essential  allinity  to  rodents  than  any  other  le- 
murine  crc-tture  has. 


'^  This  animal  belongs  to  the  order  Primates,  which  includes  man, 
the  apes,  and  tlie  lemurs.  The  leumrs  arc  the  lower  kinds  of  the  onler, 
and  difler  much  from  the  apes.  Tlioy  have  their  lieud(|uarters  in  the 
Island  of  Madagascar.  The  aye-aye  is  a  lennir,  but  it  diil'crs  singularly 
from  all  its  congeners,  and  still  more  fiom  all  apes.  In  its  dentition  it 
strongly  apjjroximates  to  the  rodent  (rat,  iifjuirrel,  and  guinea-i)ig)  order, 
as  it  has  two  cutting  teeth  al)ove,  and  two  below,  giowing  from  perma- 
nent pulps,  and  in  the  adult  condition  has  no  canines. 


IV.]  MINUTE   MODIFICATIONS.  123 

Bats  were,  by  the  earliest  observers,  naturally  supposed 
to  have  a  close  relationship  to  birds,  and  cetaceans  to  fishes. 
It  is  almost  superfluous  to  observe  that  all  now  agree  that 
these  mammals  make  not  even  an  approach  to  either  one 
or  other  of  the  two  inferior  classes. 

In  the  same  way  it  has  been  recently  supposed  that 
those  extinct  flying  saurians,  the  pterodactyls,  had  an 
affinity  with  birds  more  marked  than  any  other  known  ani- 
mals. Now,  however,  as  has  been  said  earlier,  it  is  con- 
tended that  not  only  had  they  no  such  close  affinity,  but 
that  other  extinct  reptiles  had  a  far  closer  one. 

The  amphibia  (i.  e.,  frogs,  toads,  and  efts)  were  long 
considered  (and  are  so  still  by  some)  to  be  reptiles,  show- 
ing an  aflinity  to  fishes.  It  now  appears  that  they  form 
with  the  latter  one  great  group — the  ichthyopsida  of  Prof. 
Huxley — which  difiers  widely  from  reptiles ;  while  its  two 
component  classes  (fishes  and  amphibians)  are  difficult  to 
separate  from  each  other  in  a  thoroughly  satisfactory  man- 
ner. 

If  we  adnn't  the  hypothesis  of  gradual  and  minute  mod- 
ification, the  succession  of  organisms  on  this  planet  must 
have  been  a  progress  from  the  more  general  to  the  more 
special,  and  no  doubt  this  has  been  the  case  in  the  majority 
of  instances.  Yet  it  cannot  be  denied  that  some  of  the 
most  recently-formed  fossils  show  a  structure  singularly 
more  generalized  than  any  exhibited  by  older  forms  ;  while 
others  are  more  specialized  than  are  any  allied  creatures 
of  the  existing  creation. 

A  notable  example  of  the  former  circumstance  is  ofl'ercd 
by  macrauchenia — a  hoofed  animal,  which  was  at  first  sup- 
posed to  be  a  kind  of  great  llama  (whence  its  name) — the 
llama  being  a  ruminant,  which,  like  all  the  rest,  has  two 
toes  to  each  foot.  Now  hoofed  animals  are  divisible  into 
two  very  distinct  scries,  according  as  the  number  of  func- 
tional toes  on  each  hind-foot  is  odd  or  even.     And  many 


124  THE   GENESIS   OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

other  characters  are  found  to  go  with  tliis  obvious  one. 
Even  the  very  earliest  Ungulata  show  tliis  distinction, 
which  is  completely  developed  and  marked  even  in  the 
Eocene  paheotherium  and  anoplotherium  found  in  Paris  by 
Cuvier.  The  former  of  these  has  the  toes  odd  (perissodac- 
tyl),  the  other  has  them  even  (artiodactyl). 

Now,  the  macrauchenia,  from  the  first  relics  of  it  which 
were  found,  was  thought  to  belong-,  as  has  been  said,  to 
the  even-toed  division.  Subsequent  discoveries,  however, 
seemed  to  give  it  an  equal  claim  to  rank  among  the  pe- 
rissodactyl  forms.  Others,  again,  inclined  the  balance  of 
probability  toward  the  artiodactyl.  Finally,  it  appears  that 
this  very  recently  extinct  beast  presents  a  highly-generalized 
type  of  structure,  uniting  in  one  organic  form  both  artio- 
dactyl and  ])erissodactyl  characters,  and  that  in  a  manner 
not  similarly  found  in  any  other  known  creature  living,  or 
fossil.  At  the  same  time  the  differentiation  of  artiodactyl 
and  perissodactyl  forms  existed  as  long  ago  as  in  the 
period  of  the  Eocene  ungulata,  and  that  in  a  marked  de- 
gree, as  has  been  before  observed. 

Again,  no  armadillo  now  living  presents  nearly  so  re- 
markable a  specialty  of  structure  as  was  possessed  by  the 
extinct  glyptodon.  In  that  singular  animal  the  S})inal  col- 
unni  had  most  of  its  joints  fused  together,  forming  a  rigid 
cylindrical  rod,  a  modification,  as  far  as  yet  known,  abso- 
lutely peculiar  to  it. 

In  a  similar  way  the  extinct  machairodus,  or  sabre- 
toothed  tiger,  is  characterized  by  a  more  highly  diller- 
entiated  and  specially  carnivorous  dentition  than  is  shown 
by  any  predacious  beast  of  the  present  day.  The  special- 
ization is  of  this  kind :  The  grinding  teeth  (or  molars)  of 
beasts  are  divided  into  premolars  and  true  molars.  The 
premolars  are  molars  which  have  deciduous  vertical  prede- 
cessors (or  milk-teeth),  and  any  which  are  in  front  of  such, 
i.  e.,  between  such  and  the  canine  tooth.     The  true  molars 


IV.] 


MINUTF.   MODIFICATIONS. 


125 


are  those  placed  behind  the  molars  having  deciduous  verti- 
cal predecessors.     Now,  as  a  dentition  becomes  more  dis- 


DENTITIOV   OF  THE  BAHnR-TOOTllED  TTQER   (MACnAlRODUfl). 


tinctlj  carnivorous,  so  the  hindmost  molars  and  the  fore- 
most premolars  disappear.  In  the  existing"  cats  this  pro- 
cess is  carried  so  far  that  in  the  upper  jaw  only  one  true 
mohir  is  left  on  each  side.  In  the  mnchairodus  there  is  no 
upper  true  molar  at  all,  while  the  protnolars  are  reduced  to 
two,  there  being  only  these  two  teeth  above,  on  each  side, 
behind  the  canine. 

Now,  with  regard  to  these  instances  of  early  specializa- 
tion, as  also  with  regard  to  the  changed  estimate  of  the 
degrees  of  affinity  between  forms,  it  is  not  pretended  for  a 
moment  that  such  facts  arc  irreconcilable  with  "  Natural 
Selection."  Nevertheless,  they  point  in  an  opposite  direc- 
tion. Of  course  not  only  is  it  conceivable  that  certain 
antique  tj'-pes  arrived  at  a  high  degree  of  specialization 
and  then  disappeared ;  but  it  is  manifest  they  did  do  so. 
Still  the  fact  of  this  early  degree  of  excessive  specialization 
tells  to  a  certain,  however  small,  extent  against  a  progress 
through   excessively  minute   steps,  whether  fortuitous   or 


X26  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

not ;  as  also  does  the  distinctness  of  forms  formerly  sup- 
posed to  constitute  connecting  links.  For,  it  must  not 
be  forgotten  that,  if  species  have  manifested  themselves 
generally  by  gradual  and  minute  modificiitions,  then  the 
absence,  not  in  one,  but  in  all  cases,  of  such  connecting 
links,  is  a  phenomenon  which  remains  to  be  accounted  for. 
It  appears  then  that,  apart  from  f(jrtuitous  clianges, 
there  are  certain  difliculties  in  the  way  of  accepting  ex- 
tremely minute  modifications  of  any  kind,  altliougli  these 
difliculties  may  not  be  insuperable.  Something,  at  all 
events,  is  to  be  said  in  favor  of  tlie  opinion  tliat  sudden 
and  appreciable  changes  have,  from  time  to  time,  occurred, 
however  they  may  have  been  induced.  Marked  races  have 
undoubtedly  so  arisen  (some  striking  instances  having  been 
here  recorded),  and  it  is  at  least  conceivable  tliat  such  may 
be  the  mode  of  specific  manifestation  generally,  tlie  pos- 
sible conditions  as  to  which  will  be  considered  in  a  later 
chapter. 


v.]  SPECIFIC  STABILITY.  127 


CHAPTER   V. 

AS    TO    SrECIFIO    STABILITY. 

Vkhnt  Is  moant  by  tho  I'lirnso  "  Spodflc  SUiWlity;"  such  8tnl)illty  to  bo  expected  a 
/)r/rt;7,  «ir  duo  Consldcnililo  Clmnpcs  nt  onco. — Knpldly-innvnsiiip  Dldlciilty  of  iii- 
tf^nslfyliifj  IJa('<*  ("Imrmtoif* ;  Allct'i'il  CftiiMfS  of  fliln  IMn'Tiomcrioii ;  probaMy  an  In- 
ternal Cause  rf)nperatcH. — A  Cerlnlii  l)e(lnltenos.H  In  Variations. — Mr.  Darwin  ad- 
niltfl  llie  I'rlnclidn  of  Si.cclllr  Slablllfy  111  C'erUIn  <"aRe«of  Unetpial  VariabllKy.— 
The  <1oose. — The  IVaoock. — The  Onlnea-fowl. — Ivxropllonal  Cansea  of  Variation 
un<lor  Doincstlration. — Alleged  Tendency  to  llovcrslon. — Instnnces. — Sterility  of 
Hybrids. — PreiJotency  of  Pollen  of  same  Species,  biit  of  DilTercnt  liaee. — Mortality 
in  Young  flallinacoon.s  Hybrids. — A  Bar  to  Internilxtnro  exists  soinowhcro. — 
Guinea-pigs. — Summary  and  Conclusion. 

As  was  observed  in  the  preceding  chapters,  arguments 
may  yet  be  advanced  in  favor  of  the  opinion  that  species 
are  stable  (at  least  in  the  intervals  of  their  comparatively 
sudden  successive  manifestations) ;  that  the  organic  world 
consists,  according  to  Mr.  Galton's  before-mentioned  con- 
cej)<ion,  of  many  faceted  spheroids,  each  of  which  can  re- 
pose upon  any  one  facet,  but,  when  too  much  disturbed, 
rolls  over  till  it  finds  repose  in  stable  equilibrium  upon 
another  and  distinct  facet.  Something,  it  is  here  con- 
tended, may  be  urged,  in  favor  of  the  existence  of  such 
facets — of  such  intermitting  conditions  of  stable  equilib- 
rium. 

A  view  as  to  the  stability  of  species,  in  the  intervals  of 
change,  has  been  well  expressed  in  an  able  article,  before 
quoted  from,  as  follows  : '  "A  given  animal  or  plant  ajv 
pears  to  be  contained,  as  it  were,  within  a  s])here  of  varia- 

'  Norfh  British  Review,  New  Series,  vol,  vii.,  March,  1867,  p.  282. 


128  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap 

tion  :  one  individual  lies  near  one  portion  of  the  surface  ; 
another  individual,  of  tlie  same  species,  near  another  part 
of  the  surface  ;  the  average  animal  at  the  centre.  Any  in- 
dividual may  ])roduce  descendants  varying  in  any  direction, 
but  is  more  likely  to  produce  descendants  varying  toward 
tlie  centre  of  the  sphere,  and  the  variations  in  that  direction 
will  be  greater  in  amount  than  the  variations  toward  tlie 
surface."  This  might  be  taken  as  the  rejiresentation  of  the 
normal  condition  of  species  (i.  e.,  during  the  periods  of  re- 
pose of  the  several  facets  of  the  s})heroids),  on  that  view 
which,  as  before  said,  may  yet  be  defended. 

Judging  the  organic  world  from  the  inorganic,  we  might 
exj)ect,  a  priori^  that  each  species  of  the  former,  like  crys- 
tallized species,  would  have  an  approximate  limit  of  form, 
and  even  of  size,  and  at  the  same  time  that  the  organic, 
like  the  inorganic  forms,  would  present  modifications  in 
correspondence  with  surrounding  conditions  ;  but  that  these 
mollifications  woulil  be,  not  minute  and  insignificant,  but 
definite  and  appreciable,  equivalent  to  the  shifting  of  the 
spheroid  on  to  another  facet  for  suj)port.  . 

Mr.  Murphy  says,'"*  "  Crystalline  formation  is  also  de- 
pendent in  a  \Qvy  remarkable  way  on  the  mediiun  in  which 
it  takes  place."  "  ]3eudant  has  found  that  common  salt, 
crystallizing  from  pure  water,  forms  cubes  ;  but  if  the  water 
contains  a  little  boracic  acid,  the  angles  of  the  cubes  are 
truncated.  And  the  Rev.  E.  Craig  has  found  that  carbon- 
ate of  copper,  crystallizing  from  a  solution  containing  sul- 
phuric acid,  forms  hexagonal  tubular  })risms  ;  but  if  a  little 
unnnonia  is  added,  the  form  changes  to  that  of  a  long,  rec- 
tangular prisn),  with  secondary  planes  in  the  angles.  If  a 
little  more  annnonia  is  added,  several  varieties  of  rhombic 
octahedra  appear  ;  if  a  little  nitric  acid  is  added,  the  rec- 
tangular prism  appears  again.  The  changes  lake  place  not 
by  the  addition  of  new  crystals,  but  b}'^  changing  the  growth 

'  "  Habit  and  Intelligence,"  vol.  1.,  p.  75. 


v.]  SPECIFIC  STABILITY.  129 

of  the  original  ones."  These,  however,  may  be  said  to  be 
the  same  species,  after  all ;  but  recent  researches  by  Dr.  H. 
Charlton  Bastian  seem  to  show  that  modifications  in  the 
conditions  may  result  in  the  evolution  of  forms  so  diverse 
as  to  constitute  different  organic  species. 

Mr.  Murphy  observes '  that  "  it  is  scarcely  possible  to 
doubt  that  the  various  forms  of  fungi  which  are  character- 
istic of  particular  situations  are  not  really  distinct  species, 
but  that  the   same  germ  will   develop  into  different  forms, 
according  to  the  soil  on  which  it  falls  ; "  but  it  is  possible 
to  interpret  the  facts  differently,  and  it  may  be  that  these 
arc  the  manifestations  of  really  different  and  distinct  spe- 
cies, developed  according  to  the  different  and  distinct  cir- 
cumstances in  which  each  is  placed.      Mr.  Murphy  quotes 
Dr.  Carpenter  *  to  the  effect  that  "  no  Pacciiiia  but  the 
Puccinia  rosm  is  found  upon  rose-bushes,  and  this  is  seen 
nowhere  else ;    Omygena  exifjua  is  said  to  be  never  seen 
but  on  the  hoof  of  a  dead  horse ;  and  Isaria  felina  has 
ov\y  been  observed   upon  the  dung  of  cats,  deposited  in 
humid  and  obscure  situations."     He  .adds,  "We  can  scarce- 
ly believe  that  the  air  is  full  of  the  germs  of  distinct  spe- 
cies of  fungi,  of  which  one  never  vegetates  until  it  falls  on 
the  hoof  of  a  dead  horse,  and  another,  till  it  falls  on  cat's 
dung  in  a  damp  and  dark  place."     This  is  true,  but  it  does 
not  quite  follow  that  they  are  necessarily  the  same  species, 
if,  as  Dr.  Bastian  seems  to  show,  thoroughly  different  and 
distinct  organic  forms '  can  be  evolved  one  from  another 
by  modifying  the  conditions.     This  observer  has  brought 
forward  arguments  and  facts  from  which  it  would  appear 
that  such   definite,  sudden,  and    considerable    transforma- 
tions may  take  place  in  the  lowest  organisms.     If  such  is 
really  the  case,  we  might  expect,  a  priori^  to  find  in  the 

3  "  Habit  and  Intelligence,"  vol.  i.,  p.  202. 
*  "Comparative  riiysiology,"  p.  21-1,  note. 
»  See  Nature,  June  and  July,  1870,  Nos.  36,  30,  37,  pp.  170,  193,  219. 


130  THE   GENESIS   OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

liigliest  organisms  a  tendency  (mucli  more  niipetled  and 
rare  in  its  manifestations)  to  similarly  appreciable  and 
sudden  changes,  under  certain  stimuli ;  but  a  tendency  to 
continued  stability,  under  normal  and  ordinary  conditions. 
The  proposition  that  species  have,  under  ordinary  circum- 
stances, a  defmite  limit  to  their  variability,  is  largely  su})- 
j)()rted  by  facts  brought  forward  by  the  zealous  industry  of 
Mr.  Darwin  himself.  It  is  unquestionable  that  the  degrees 
of  variation  which  have  been  arrived  at  in  domestic  ani- 
mals have  been  obtained  more  or  less  readily  in  a  moderate 
amount  of  time,  but  that  further  tlevelopment  in  certain 
desired  directions  is  in  some  a  matter  of  extreme  difliculty, 
and  in  others  appears  to  be  all  but,  if  not  quite,  an  impos- 
sibility. It  is  also  unquestionable  that  the  degree  of  di- 
vergence ^vhich  has  been  attained  in  one  domestic  species 
is  no  criterion  of  the  amount  of  divergence  which  has  been 
attained  in  another.  It  is  contended  on  the  other  side  that 
we  have  no  evidence  of  any  limits  to  variation  other  than 
those  imposed  by  physical  conditions,  such,  e.  g.,  as  those 
which  determine  the  greatest  degree  of  speed  possible  to 
any  animal  (of  a  given  size)  moving  over  the  earth's  sur- 
face ;  also  it  is  said  that  the  dilFerences  in  degree  of  change 
shown  by  difl'erent  domestic  animals  de})en(l  in  great  meas- 
ure upon  the  abundance  or  scarcity  of  individuals  subjected 
to  man's  selection,  together  with  the  varying  diiection  and 
amount  of  his  attention  in  dilTerent  cases  ;  finally,  it  is  said 
that  the  changes  found  in  Nature  are  within  the  limits  to 
which  the  variation  of  domestic  animals  extends — it  being 
the  case,  that  when  changes  of  a  certain  amount  have  oc- 
curred to  a  species  under  nature,  it  becomes  another  species, 
or  sometimes  two  or  more  other  species  by  ilivergent  varia- 
tions, each  of  these  species  being  able  again  to  vary  and 
diverge  in  any  useful  direction. 

But  the  fact  of  the  rapidly-increasing  difliculty  found  in 
producing,  by  over  such  careful  selection,  any  further  ex- 


v.]  SPECIFrC  STADILITY.  131 

trcmc  in  some  change  already  carried  very  far  (snch  as  tlie 
tail  of  the  "  fantailed  pigeon,"  or  tiie  crop  of  tlie  "  pouter"), 
is  certainly,  so  far  as  it  goes,  on  the  side  of  the  existence 
of  definite  limits  to  variability.     It   is   asserted,  in   re})ly, 
that  ])hysiological  conditions  of  health  and  life  may  bar  any 
such  furlher   development.     U'hus,   Mr.  Wallace   says'  of 
these  dcvelo])ments  :  "  Variation  seems  to  have  reached  its 
limits  in  these  birds.     Jiut  so  it  has  in  nature.     'J'he  fan- 
tail  has  not  only  more  tail-feathers  than  any  of  the  three 
hundred  and  forty  existing   species  of  pigeons,  but  more 
than  any  of  the  eight   thousand   known   species  of  birds. 
There  is,  of  course,  some   limit  to  the  number  of  feathers 
of  which  a  tail  useful  for  flight  can  consist,  and  in  the  fan- 
lail  we  have  proba])ly  reached  that  limit.     Many  birds  have 
the  oesophagus,  or  the  skin  of  the  neck,  more  or  less  dilata- 
ble, but  in  no  known  bird  is  it  so  dilatable  as  in  the  pouter 
pigeon.     Here  again  the  possible  limit,  compatible  with  a 
healthy  existence,  has  probably  been  reached.    In  like  man- 
ner, the  difference  in  the  size  and  form  of  the  beak  in  the  va- 
rious breeds  of  the  domestic  pigeon,  is  greater  than  that  be- 
tween the  extreme  forms  of  beak  in  the  various  genera  and 
sub-families  of  the  whole  pigeon  tribe.    From  these  facts,  and 
many  others  of  the  same  nature,  we  may  fairly  infer  that, 
if  rigid  selection  were  applied  to  any  organ,  w^e  could,  in  a 
comparatively  short  time,  produce  a  much  greater  amount 
of  change  than  that  which  occurs  between  species  and  spe- 
cies in  a  state  of  nature,  since  the  difTerences  which  we  do 
produce  arc  often  comparable  with   those  which  exist  be- 
tween distinct  genera  or  distinct  families." 

But,  in  a  domestic  bird  like  the  fant^il,  where  Natural 
Selection  docs  not  come  into  l)lay,  the  tail-feathers  could 
hardly  be  limit(Ml  by  "  utility  for  flight,"  yet  two  more  tail- 
feathers  could  certainly  exist  in  a  fancy  breed,  if  "utility  for 
flight"  were  the  only  obstacle.     It  seems  j)robablethat  the 

0  "  Natural  Selection,"  p.  293. 


132  THE   GENESIS   OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

real  barrier  is  an  internal  one  in  the  nature  of  the  organism, 
and  the  existence  of  such  is  just  what  is  contended  for  in 
this  chapter.  As  to  the  differences  between  domestic  races 
being  greater  than  those  between  species,  or  even  genera, 
that  is  not  enough  for  the  argument.  For,  upon  the  theory 
of  "  Natural  Selection "  all  birds  have  a  connnon  origin, 
from  which  they  diverged  by  infmitesimal  changes,  so  that 
we  ought  to  meet  witli  sufficient  changes  to  warrant  the 
belief  that  a  hornlnli  could  be  produced  from  a  humming- 
bird, proportionate  time  being  idlowcd. 

But  not  only  does  it  appear  that  there  are  barriers  which 
oppose  change  in  certain  directions,  but  that  there  are  posi- 
tive tendencies  to  development  along  certain  special  lines. 
In  a  bird  which  has  been  kept  and  studied  like  the  pigeon, 
it  is  dillicult  to  believe  that  any  remarkable  spontaneous 
variations  would  pass  unnoticed  by  breeders,  or  that  they 
would  fail  to  be  attended  to  and  developed  by  some  one 
fancier  or  otlwr.  On  the  h^'pothesis  of  indefinite  varia- 
bility, it  is  then  hard  to  say  wiiy  pigeons  with  bills  like 
toucans,  or  with  certain  feathers  lengthened  like  those  of 
trogans,  or  those  of  birds  of  pjiradise,  have  never  been  pro- 
duced. Tiiis,  however,  is  a  question  whicii  may  be  settled 
by  experiment.  Let  a  pigeon  be  bred  with  a  bill  like  a 
toucan's,  and  with  the  two  middle  tail-feathers  lengthened 
like  those  of  the  king-bird  of  paradise,  or  even  let  indi- 
viduals be  produced  which  exhibit  any  marked  tendency 
of  the  kind,  and  indefmite  variability  shall  be  at  once  con- 
ceded. 

As  yet,  all  the  changes  which  have  taken  place  in  pigeons 
are  of  a  few  definite  kinds  only,  such  as  may  be  well  con- 
ceived to  be  compatible  with  a  species  possessed  of  a  cer- 
tain inherent  capacity  for  considerable  yet  definite  varia- 
tion, a  capacil:y  for  the  ready  production  of  certain  degrees 
of  abnormality,  which  then  cannot  be  further  increased. 

Mr.  Darwin  himself  has  already  acquiesced  in  the  prop- 


v.]  SPECIFIC  STABILITY.  133 

osition  liere  maintained,  inasmuch  as  he  distinctly  afiirms 
tlie  existence  of  a  marked  internal  barrier  to  change  in  cer- 
tain cases.  And  if  this  is  admitted  in  one  case,  the  jyriii- 
ciple  is  conceded,  and  it  iminediately  becomes  j)robable 
that  such  internal  barriers  exist  in  all,  although  enclosing 
a  much  larger  field  for  variation  in  some  cases  than  in 
others.  Mr.  Darwin  abundantly  demonstrates  the  variabil- 
ity of  dogs,  horses,  fowls,  and  pigeons,  but  he  none  the  less 
shows  clearly  the  very  synall  extent  to  which  the  goose,  the 
peacock,  and  the  guinea-fowl  have  varied.'  Mr.  Darwin  at- 
tempts to  explain  this  fact  as  regards  the  goose  by  the  ani- 
m.al  being  valued  only  for  food  and  feathers,  and  from  no 
])leasure  having  been  felt  in  it  on  other  accounts.  He  adds, 
however,  at  the  end  the  striking  remark,"  which  concedes 
the  whole  position,  "  but  the  goose  seems  to  have  a  si?i- 
gularhj  inflexible  organization^  This  is  not  the  only 
place  in  which  such  expressions  are  used.  He  elsewhere 
makes  use  of  phrases  which  quite  harmonize  with  the  con- 
ception of  a  normal  specific  constancy,  but  varying  greatly 
and  suddenly  at  intervals.  Thus  he  speaks '  of  a  xohole 
organization  seeming  to  have  become  j^lctstic,  and  tending 
to  deimrt  from  the  parental  type.  That  different  organ- 
isms should  have  different  degrees  of  variability,  is  only 
what  might  have  been  expected  a  priori  from  the  exist- 
ence of  parallel  differences  in  inorganic  species,  some  of 
these  having  but  a  single  form,  and  others  being  poly- 
morphic. 

To  return  to  the  goose,  however,  it  may  be  remarked 
that  it  is  at  least  as  probable  that  its  fixity  of  character  is 
the  cause  of  the  neglect,  as  the  reverse.  It  is  by  no  means 
unfair  to  assume  that  had  the  goose  shown  a  tendency  to 
vary  similar  in  degree  to  the  tendency  to  variation  of  the 

'  "  Aniraals  and  Plants  tinder  Domestication,"  vol.  i.,  pp.  289-295. 
8  "Orif^in  of  Species,"  5th  edit.,  1869,  p.  45. 
»  Ibid.,  p.  13. 


134  THE  GENESIS   OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

fowl  or  pigeon,  it  would  liave  received  attention  at  once 
oil  that  account. 

As  to  the  peacock  it  is  excused  on  tlie  pleas  (1),  that 
the  individuals  maintained  are  so  few  in  number,  and  (2) 
that  its  beauty  is  so  great  it  can  hardly  be  improved.  But 
the  individuals  maintained  have  ?iot  been  too  feio  for  the  in- 
dependent origin  of  the  black-shouldered  form,  or  for  the 
su])planting  of  the  connnoner  one  by  it.  As  to  any  neglect 
in  selection,  it  can  hardly  be  imagined  that  with  regard  to 
this  bird  (kept  as  it  is  all  but  exclusively  for  its  beauty), 
any  sj)ontaneous  beautiful  variation  in  color  or  form  would 
have  been  neglected.  On  the  contrary,  it  would  have  been 
seized  uj^on  with  avidity  and  preserved  with  anxious  care. 
Yet  apart  fix)m  the  black-shouldered  and  white  varieties,  no 
tendency  to  change  has  been  known  to  show  itself.  As  to 
its  being  too  beautiful  for  improvement,  that  is  a  proj)osi- 
tion  which  can  hardly  be  maintained.  Many  consider  the 
Javan  bird  as  much  handsomer  than  the  common  peacock, 
and  it  would  be  easy  to  suggest  a  score  of  improvements  as 
regards  either  species. 

The  guinea-fowl  is  excused,  as  being  "  no  general  favor- 
ite, and  scarcely  more  common  than  the  peacock;"  but  Mr. 
Darwin  himself  shows  and  admits  that  it  is  a  noteworthy 
instance  of  constancy  under  very  varied  conditions. 

These  instances  alone  (and  there  are  yet  others)  seem 
sufficient  to  establish  the  assertion  that  degree  of  change  is 
different  in  different  domestic  animals.  It  is,  then,  some- 
what unwarrantable  in  any  Darwinian  to  assume  that  all 
wild  animals  have  a  capacity  for  change  similar  to  that  ex- 
isting in  some  of  the  domestic  ones.  It  seems  more  reason- 
able to  assert  the  opposite,  namely,  that  if,  as  Mr.  Darwin 
says,  the  capacity  for  change  is  different  in  diU'crent  domes- 
tic animals,  it  nmst  surely  be  limited  in  those  which  have 
it  least,  and  a  fortiori  limited  in  wild  animals. 

Indeed,    it  cannot  be   reasonably  maintained   that  wild 


v.]  SPECIFIC  STABILITY.  135 

species  certainly  vary  as  much  as  do  domestic  races  ;  it  is 
possil)lc  that  tlicy  may  do  so,  but  at  least  this  has  not  beea 
yet  sliown.  Indeed,  tlie  much  greater  degree  of  variation 
among  domestic  animals  than  among  wild  ones  is  asserted 
over  and  over  again  by  Mr.  Darwin,  and  his  assertions  arc 
supported  by  an  overwhelming  mass  of  facts  and  instances. 

Of  course  it  niay  be  asserted  that  a  tendency  to  indefi- 
nite change  exists  in  all  cases,  and  that  it  is  only  the  circum- 
stances and  condilions  of  life  which  modify  the  effects  of 
this  tendency  to  change  so  as  to  produce  such  different 
results  in  different  cases.  But  assertion  is  not  proof,  and 
this  assertion  has  not  been  proved.  Indeed,  it  may  be 
equally  asserted  (and  the  statement  is  more  consonant  with 
some  of  tlic  facts  given),  that  domestication  in  certain  an- 
imals induces  and  occasions  a  capacity  for  change  which  is 
wanting  in  wild  animals — the  introduction  of  new  causes 
occasioning  new  effects.  For,  though  a  certain  degree  of 
variability  (normally,  in  all  probability,  only  oscillation)  ex- 
ists in  all  organisms,  yet  domestic  ones  are  exposed  to  new 
and  different  causes  of  variability,  resulting  in  such  striking 
divergencies  as  have  been  observ^ed.  Not  even  in  this  latter 
case,  however,  is  it  necessary  to  believe  that  the  variability 
is  indefinite,  but  only  that  the  small  oscillations  become  in 
certain  instances  intensified  into  large  and  conspicuous  ones. 
Moreover,  it  is  possible  that  some  of  our  domestic  animals 
have  been  in  part  chosen  and  domesticated  through  possess- 
ing variability  in  an  eminent  degree. 

That  caph  species  exhibits  certain  oscillations  of  struct- 
ure is  admitted  on  all  hands.  Mr.  Darwin  asserts  that  this 
is  the  exhibition  of  a  tendency  to  vary  which  is  absolutely 
indefinite.  If  this  indefinite  variability  does  exist,  of  course 
no  more  need  be  said.  But  we  have  seen  that  there  are 
argiunents  a  j^riori  and  a  jyosteriori  against  it,  while  the 
occurrence  of  variations  in  certain  domestic  animals  greater 
in  degree  than  the  differences  between  many  wild  species, 


136  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

is  no  argument  in  favor  of  its  existence,  until  it  can  be 
shown  tliat  the  causes  of  variability  in  the  one  case  are  the 
same  as  in  the  other.  An  argument  against  it,  however, 
may  be  drawn  from  the  fact  that  certain  animals,  though 
placed  under  tlie  influence  of  those  exceptional  causes  of 
variation  to  which  domestic  animals  are  subject,  have  yet 
never  been  known  to  vary,  even  in  a  degree  e({ual  to  tlial 
in  whicli  certain  wild   kinds  have  been  ascertained  lo  vary. 

In  addition  to  this  immutability  of  cliaracter  in  some 
animals,  it  is  undeniable  that  domestic  varieties  have  little 
stability,  and  mucli  tendency  to  reversion,  whatever  be  the 
true  explanation  of  such  phenomena. 

In  controverting  the  generally  received  opinion  as  to 
"  reversion,"  Mr.  Darwin  has  shown  that  it  is  not  all  breeds 
which  in  a  few  years  revert  to  the  original  form ;  but  he 
has  shown  no  more.  Thus,  the  feral  rabbits  of  Porto  Santo, 
Jamaica,  and  the  Falkland  Islands,  have  not  yet  so  reverttid 
in  those  several  localities.'"  Nevertheless,  a  Porto  Santo 
rabbit  brought  to  England  reverted  in  a  manner  the  most 
striking,  recovering  tiie  proper  color  of  its  fur  "  in  rather 
less  than  four  years."  ''  Again,  the  white  silk  fowl,  in  our 
climate,  "reverts  to  the  ordinary  color  of  the  connnon  fowl 
in  its  skin  and  bones,  due  care  having  been  taken  to  pre- 
vent any  cross."  "  This  reversion  taldng  place  in  spite  of 
careful   selection,  is  very  remarkable. 

Numerous  other  instances  of  reversion  are  given  by  Mr. 
Darwin,  both  as  regards  plants  and  animals ;  among  others, 
the  singular  fact  of  bud  reversion.''  The  curiously-recurr- 
ring  development  of  black  sheep,  in  spite  of  tiie  most  care- 
ful breeding,  may  also  be  mentioned,  thougli,  perhaps, 
reversion  has  no  part  in  the  phenomenon. 

These  facts  seem  certainly  to   tell  in   favor  of  limited 

'°  "  Anlnittla  and  Plants  under  Domestication,"  vol,  i.,  p,  115. 
"  Ibid.,  vol.  i.,  p.  114.  '^  Ibid.,  vol.  i.,  p.  243 

13  Ibid.,  vol.  ii.,  p.  3G1. 


II-l  SPECIFIC  STABILITY.  I37 

variabilify,  while  tlic  cases  of  non*reversion  do  not  contra- 
dict it,  as  it  is  not  contended  that  all  species  have  the  same 
tendency  to  revert,  but  rather  that  their  capacities  in  this 
respect,  as  well  as  for  change,  are  different  in  different 
kinds,  so  that  often  reversion  may  only  show  itself  at  the 
end  of  very  Ion*];-  periods  indeed. 

Yet  some  of  the  instances  given  as  probable  or  possible 
causes  of  reversion  by  Mr.  Darwin,  can  hardlj'  be  such.  He 
cites,  for  examjile,  the  occasional  presence  of  supernumerary 
dig-its  in  man.'*  For  this  notion,  however,  he  is  not  re- 
sponsible, as  he  rests  his  remark  on  the  autliority  of  a  pas- 
sage published  by  Prof.  Owen.  Again,  he  refers  '*  to  "the 
greater  frequency  of  a  monster  proboscis  in  the  pig  than 
in  any  other  animal."  But  with  the  exception  of  the  pe- 
culiar muzzle  of  the  Saiga  (or  European  antelope),  the 
only  known  proboscidian  Ungulates  are  the  elephants  and 
tapirs,  and  to  neither  of  these  has  the  pig  any  close  aninit3\ 
It  is  rather  in  the  horse  than  in  the  pig  that  we  might  look 
for  the  appearance  of  a  reversionary  proboscis,  as  both  the 
elephants  and  the  tapirs  have  the  toes  of  the  hind-foot  of 
an  odd  number.  It  is  true  that  the  elephants  are  generally 
considered  to  form  a  group  apart  from  both  the  odd  and  the 
even  toed  Ungiilata.  But  of  the  two,  their  affinities  with 
the  odd-toed  division  are  more  marked.  " 

Another  argument  in  favor  of  the,  at  least  intermiiting, 
constancy  of  specific  forms  and  of  sudden  modification,  may 
be  drawn  from  the  absence  of  minute  transitional  forms,  but 
this  will  be  considered  in  the  next  chapter. 

''•  "Animals  and  Tlants  under  Domestication,"  vol.  ii.,  p.  IC. 

'5  Ibid.,  vol.  ii.,  p.  57. 

'"  This  1ms  boon  shown  by  my  lato  friend  Mr.  II.  N.  Turner,  Jr.,  in 
an  excellent  paper  by  him  in  the  "  rroceedings  of  the  Zoological  Society 
for  184f>,"  p.  147.  The  untimely  death,  through  a  dis5ecting  wound,  of 
this  most  promising  young  naturalist,  was  a  very  great  loss  to  zoological 
science. 


138  TUE  GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

It  remains  now  to  notice  in  favor  of  specific  stability, 
that  the  objection  drawn  from  physiological  difference  be- 
tween "species"  and  "races"  still  exists  mnefuted. 

Mr.  Darwin  freely  admits  dilliculties  regarding  the  ste- 
rility of  different  species  when  crossed,  and  shows  satis- 
factorily that  it  could  never  have  arisen  from  the  action  of 
"  Natural  Selection."  He  remarks  "  also :  "  With  some  few 
exceptions,  in  the  case  of  plants,  domesticated  varieties, 
such  as  those  of  the  dog,  fowl,  pigeon,  several  fruit-trees, 
and  culinary  vegetables,  which  diller  from  each  other  in  ex- 
ternal characters  more  than  many  species,  are  perfectly  fer- 
tile when  crossed,  or  even  fertile  in  excess,  while  closely- 
allied  species  are  almost  invariably  in  some  degree  sterile." 

Again,  after  speaking  of  "  the  general  law  of  good  being 
derived  from  the  intercrossing  of  distinct  individuals  of  the 
same  species,"  and  the  evidence  of  the  j)ollen  of  a  distinct 
variety  or  race  is  prepotent  over  a  flower's  own  pollen,  adds 
the  very  significant  remark,  **  "  When  distinct  species  are 
crossed,  the  case  is  directly  the  reverse,  for  a  jilant's  own 
pollen  is  almost  always  prepotent  over  foreign  pollen." 

Again  he  adds : "  "I  believe  from  observations  commu- 
nicated to  me  by  Mr.  Hewitt,  who  has  had  great  exp(;rience 
in  hybridizing  j)heasants  and  fowls,  that  the  early  death  of  the 
em])ryo  is  a  very  frequent  cause  of  sterility  in  first  crosses. 
Mr.  Salter  has  recently  given  the  results  of  an  examination 
of  about  five  hundred  eggs  produ(jed  from  various  crosses 
between  three  sj^ecies  of  Gallus  and  their  hybrids.  The 
majority  of  these  eggs  had  been  fertilized,  and  in  the  ma- 
jority of  the  fertilized  eggs  the  emluyos  "eitiier  had  been 
partially  developed  and  had  then  aborted,  or  had  become 
nearly  mature,  but  the  young  chickens  had  been  unable  to 
break  through  the  shell.     Of  the  chickens  which  were  bori», 

''  "Animals  and  Plants  under  Domestication,"  vol.  ii.,  p.  189, 
'8  "Orijriu  of  Species,"  5tli  edit.,  180'.),  p.  115. 
13  Ibid.,  p.  322. 


v.]  SPECIFIC  STABILITY.  I39 

more  than  four-fifths  died  within  tho  first  few  days,  or  at 
latest  weeks,  '  without  any  obvious  cause,  apparently  from 
mere  inabihty  to  live,'  so  that  from  five  liundred  eggs  only 
twelve  chickens  were  reared.  The  early  death  of  hybrid 
eml)ryos  probably  occurs  in  like  manner  mtli  plants,  at  least 
it  is  known  that  hybrids  raised  from  very  distinct  species 
arc  sometimes  weak  and  dw^arfed,  and  j)crish  at  an  early 
age,  of  whicli  fact  Max  Wichura  has  recently  given  some 
striking  cases  with  hybrid  willows." 

Mr.  Darwin  objects  to  the  notion  that  there  is  any 
special  sterility  imposed  to  check  specific  intermixture  and 
cliangc,  saying,""  "  To  grant  to  species  the  special  power 
of  jModucing  liyl)ri(ls,  and  then  to  stop  tlicir  further  propa- 
gation by  difiercnt  degrees  of  sterility,  not  stri(;tly  related 
to  the  facility  of  the  first  union  between  their  parents,  seems 
a  strange  arrangement." 

But  this  only  amounts  to  saying  that  the  author  him- 
self would  not  have  so  acted  had  he  been  the  Creator.  A 
"  strange  arrangement "  must  be  admitted  anyhow,  and  all 
who  acknowledge  teleology  at  all,  must  admit  that  the 
strange  arrangement  was  designed.  Mr.  Darwin  says,  as 
to  the  sterility  of  species,  that  the  cause  lies  exclusively  in 
their  sexual  constitution;  but  all  that  need  be  afiirmed  is 
that  sterility  is  brought  about  somehow,  and  it  is  undenia- 
ble that  "  crossing"  is  checked.  All  that  is  contended  for 
is  that  there  is  a  bar  to  the  intermixture  of  species,  but  not 
of  breeds  ;  and  if  the  conditions  of  the  generative  products 
arc  that  bar,  it  is  enough  for  the  aigument,  no  special  kind 
of  barring  action  being  contended  for. 

He,  however,  attempts  to  account  for  the  modification 
of  the  sexual  products  of  species  as  compared  with  those 
of  varieties,  by  the  exposure  of  the  former  to  more  uniform 
conditions  during  longer  periods  of  time  than  those  to  which 
varieties  are  exi)osed,  and  (hat  as  wild  animals,  when  cap- 

20  "Origin  of  Species,"  5th  edit.,  1809,  p.  314. 


140  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

tured,  are  often  rendered  sterile  ])y  captivity,  so  the  influ- 
ence of  union  with  another  species  may  produce  a  similar 
effect.  It  seems  to  the  author  an  unwarrantable  assump- 
tion that  a  cross  with  what,  on  the  Darwinian  theory,  can 
only  be  a  slightly-diverging  descendant  of  a  common  par- 
ent, should  produce  an  effect  equal  to  that  of  captivity, 
and  consequent  change  of  habit,  as  well  as  considerable 
modification  of  food. 

No  clear  case  has  been  given  by  Mr.  Darwin  in  which 
mongrel  animals,  descended  from  the  same  undoubted  spe- 
cies, have  been  persistently  infertile  i?ite)' se  /  nor  any  clear 
case  in  which  hybrids  between  animals,  generally  admitted 
to  be  distinct  species,  have  been  continually  fertile  inter  se. 

It  is  true  that  facts  are  brought  forward  tending  to 
establish  the  probability  of  the  doctrine  of  Pallas,  that  spe- 
cies may  sometimes  be  rendered  fertile  by  domestication. 
But  even  if  this  were  true,  it  would  be  no  approximation 
toward  proving  the  converse,  i.  e.,  that  races  and  varieties 
may  become  sterile  when  wild.  And  whatever  may  be  the 
preference  occasionally  shown  by  certain  breeds  to  mate 
with  their  own  variety,  no  sterility  is  recorded  as  resulting 
from  unions  with  other  varieties.  Indeed,  Mr.  Darwin  le- 
marks,'"  "With  respect  to  sterility  fiom  the  crossing  of 
domestic  races,  I  know  of  no  well-ascertained  case  with  ani- 
mals. This  fact  (seeing  the  great  difference  in  structure 
between  some  breeds  of  pigeons,  fowls,  pigs,  dogs,  etc.) 
is  extraordinary  when  contrasted  with  the  sterility  of  many 
closely-allied  natural  species  when  crossed." 

It  has  been  alleged  that  the  domestic  and  wild  guinea- 
pig  do  not  breed  together,  but  the  spcjcilic  identity  of  these 
forms  is  very  problematical.  Mr.  A.  D.  15artlett,  superin- 
tendent of  the  Zoological  Gardens,  whose  experience  is 
so  great,  and  observation  so  quick,  believes  them  to  be  de- 
cidedly distinct  species. 

^^  "  Animals  and  Plants  under  Domestication,"  vol.  ii.,  p.  104. 


v.]  SPECIFIC  STABILITY.  141 

Tlma,  tlicn,  it  seems  that  a  certain  normal  specific  sta- 
bility in  Kpecios,  accompanied  hy  occasional  sudden  and 
considerable  modifications,  miglit  be  expected  a  priori 
from  what  we  know  of  crystalline  inorganic  forms  and  from 
what  we  may  anticipate  with  regard  to  the  lowest  organic 
ones.  This  presumption  13  strengthened  by  the  knowledge 
of  the  increasing  di/Ticnlties  which  l:>eset  any  attempt  to 
indefinitely  intensify  any  race  characteristics.  The  obsta- 
cles to  this  indefinite  intensification,  as  well  as  to  certain 
lines  of  variation  in  certain  cases,  appear  to  be  not  only 
external,  but  to  depend  on  internal  causes  or  an  internal 
cause.  We  have  seen  that  Mr.  D.'irvvin  himself  implicitly 
admits  the  principle  of  specific  stability  in  asserting  the 
singular  inflexibility  of  the  organization  of  the  goose.  We 
have  also  seen  that  it  is  not  fair  to  conclude  that  all  wild 
races  can  vary  as  much  as  the  most  variable  domestic  ones. 
It  has  also  been  shown  that  there  are  grounds  for  believing 
in  a  tendency  to  reversion  generally,  as  it  is  distinctly  pres- 
ent in  certain  instances.  Also  that  specific  stability  is  con- 
firmed by  the  j)hysiological  obstacles  which  oppose  them- 
selves to  any  considerable  or  continued  intermixture  of 
species,  while  no  such  barriers  oppose  themselves  to  the 
blending  of  varieties.  All  these  considerations  taken  to- 
gether may  fairly  be  considered  as  strengthening  the  belief 
that  specific  manifestations  are  relatively  stable.  At  the 
same  time  the  view  advocated  in  this  book  does  not  depend 
upon,  and  is  not  identified  with,  any  such  stability.  All 
that  the  author  contends  for  is  that  specific  manifestation 
takes  place  along  certain  lines,  and  according  to  law,  and 
not  in  an  exceedingly  minute,  indefinite,  and  fortuitous 
manner.  Finally,  he  cannot  but  feel  justified,  from  all 
that  has  been  brought  forward,  in  reiterating  the  open- 
ing assertion  of  this  chapter  that  something  is  still  to  be 
said  for  the  view  which  maintains  that  species  are  stable, 
at  least  in  the  intervals  of  their  comparatively  rapid  suo 
cossive  manifestations. 


H2  THE   GENESIS   OF   SPECIES.  JChap. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

SPECIES    AND    TIME. 
\ 

Two  IJelations  of  Species  to  Time. — No  Kvidence  of  Tast  Existence  of  Minutely- 
iiiteniieiliatu  Forms  when  such  might  bo  expoctcd  a  priori. — Hats,  I'toioduc- 
tyis,  DiiiosaurLi,  and  IJirds. — Ichthyosauria,  Ciiolouia,  and  Anoura. — llwse  An- 
cestry.— Ijibyrinthodonts  and  Tiiiohitcs. — Twy  Subdivisions  of  the  Second  lida- 
tion  of  Species  to  'lime. — Sir  William  Tiiomson's  Views. — rrobable  Period  re- 
qiiin;d  fur  Ultimate  Sitecillo  JCvolnlion  from  Primitive  Ancestral  Forms. — (Jeo- 
nu'trical  Ijicrease  of 'I'lme  re<iuircd  for  Itupldly-mulliplyliij,'  Increase  of  Stnicliiral 
Dillireucofl. — I'roboHcis  Monkey. — 'I'imc  reiiulred  fur  Dcpo.iitlon  of  Btratii  iieces- 
6ury  for  Darwinian  Evolution. — High  Organiziitlon  of  Silurian  Forms  of  Life. — 
Absence  of  FossILj  in  Oldest  Kocks. — Summary  and  O-onehision. 

Two  considerations  present  themselves  with  reg-anl  to 
the  necessary  rehition  of  species  to  time  if  tlie  theory  of 
"Natural  Selection"  is  valid  and  sufficient. 

The  first  is  with  regard  to  the  evidences  of  tlie  past  ex- 
istence of  intermediate  forms,  their  duration  and  succession. 

The  second  is  with  rciTJU'd  to  the  total  amount  of  time 
required  for  the  evolution  of  all  organic  forms  from  a  few 
original  ones,  and  the  bearing  of  other  sciences  on  tliis 
question  of  time. 

As  to  the  first  consideration,  evidence  is  as  yet  against 
the  modification  of  species  by  "  Natural  Selection  "  alone, 
because  not  only  are  minutely  transitional  forms  generally 
absent,  but  they  are  absent  in  cases  where  we  might  cer- 
tainly a  priori  have  expected  them  to  be  present. 

Now  it  has  been  said:*  "If  Mr.  Darwin's  theory  l)e 
true,  the  number  of  varieties  diifering  one  from  another  a 

*  North  British  Review^  New  Series,  vol.  vii.,  March,  1867,  p.  31 7. 


VI.]  SPEOIES  AND   TIME.  I43 

very  little  must  have  been  indefinitely  great,  so  great 
indeed  as  probably  far  to  exceed  the  number  of  individuals 
which  have  existed  of  any  one  variety.  If  this  be  true,  it 
would  be  more  probable  that  no  two  specimens  preserved  as 
fossils  should  be  of  one  variety  than  that  we  should  find  a 
great  many  specimens  collected  from  a  very  few  varieties, 
provided,  of  course,  the  chances  of  preservation  are  equal 
for  all  individuals."  "It  is  really  strange  that  vast  num- 
bers of  perfectly  similar  specimens  should  be  found,  the 
chances  against  their  perpetuation  as  fossils  are  so  great ; 
but  it  is  also  very  strange  that  the  specimens  should 
be  so  exaclly  aUke  as  they  are,  if,  in  fact,  they  came  and 
vanished  by  a  gradual  change." 

Mr.  Darwin  attemi)ls'to  show  cause  wliy  we  should 
believe  a  priori  that  intermediate  vjirieties  would  exist  in 
lesser  numbers  than  the  more  extreme  forms ;  but  ihouirh 
they  would  doubtless  do  so  sometimes,  it  seems  too  much 
to  assert  that  they  would  do  so  generally,  still  less  univer- 
sally. Now  little  less  than  universal  and  very  marked 
inferiority  in  numbers  would  account  for  the  absence  of 
certain  scries  of  minutely  intermediate  fossil  specimens. 
The  mass  of  paleontological  evidence  is  indeed  overwhelm- 
ingly against  minute  and  gradual  modification.  It  is  true 
that  when  once  an  animal  has  obtained  powers  of  flight  its 
means  of  diffusion  are  indefinitely  increased,  and  we  might 
expect  to  find  many  relics  of  an  aerial  form  and  few  of  its 
antecedent  state — with  nascent  wings  just  commencing 
their  suspensory  power.  Yet  had  such  a  slow  mode  of 
origin,  as  Darwinians  contend  for,  operated  exclusively  in 
all  cases,  it  is  absolutely  incredible  that  birds,  bats,  and 
pterodactyls,  should  have  left  the  remains  they  have,  and 
yet  not  a  single  relic  be  preserved  in  any  one  instance  of 
any  of  these  dilTerent  forms  of  wing  in  tlieir  incipient  and 
relatively  im})erfect  functional  condition  I 

«  "Origin  of  Species,"  5th  edit.,  18G'.»,  p.  212. 


lU 


THE   GENESIS   OF  SPECIES. 


[Chap. 


Whenever  the  remains  of  bats  have  been  found  they 
have  presented  tlie  exact  type  of  existing-  forms,  and  there 
is  as  yet  no  indication  of  the  conditions  of  an  incipient  ele- 
vation from  the  ground. 

The  pterodactyls,  again,  though  a  numerous  group,  are 
all  true  and  i)crfect  pterodactyls,   though  surely  some    of 


^^ 


"xi^v 


WINQ-UONES  or  PTKUOOACTVL,   BAT,   AND   BIBU. 

the  many  incipient  forms,  which  on  the  Darwinian  theory 
have  existed,  must  have  had  a  good  chance  of  preservation. 
As  to  birds,  the  only  notable  instance  in  which  discov- 
eries recently  made  appear  to  fill  up  an  important  hiatus,  is 
the  interpretation  given  by  Prof.  Huxley  ^  to  the  remains 
of  Dinosaurian  reptiles,  and  which  were  noticed  in  the 
third  chapter  of  this  work.  The  learned  professor  has  (as 
also  has  Prof.  Cope  in  America)  shown  that  in  very  impor- 
tant and  significant  points  the  skeletons  of  the  Iguanodon 
and  of  its  allies  approach  very  closely  to  that  existing  in 
the  ostrich,  emeu,  rhea,  etc.  He  has  given  weighty  rea- 
sons for  thinking  that  the  line  of  afiinity  between  birds  and 

'  See  also  the  Popular  Science  Review  for  July,  1868. 


VI.]  SPECIES  AND   TIME.  I45 

reptiles  passes  to  the  birds  last  named  from  the  Dinosauria 
rather  than  from  the  Pterodactyls,   through  Archeopteryx- 
like  forms  to  the  ordinary  birds.     Finally,  he  has  thrown 
out  the   suggestion   that  the  celebrated  footsteps   left  by 
some  extinct  three-toed  creatures  on  the  very  ancient  sand- 
stone of  Connecticut  were  made,  not,  as  hitherto  supposed, 
by  true  birds,  but  by  more  or  less  ornithic  reptiles.     But 
even  supposing  all   that  is  asserted  or  inferred  on  this  sub- 
ject to  be  fully  proved,  it  would  not  approach  to  a  demon- 
stration of   specific    origin    by  mi?iide    modification.     And 
though   it  harmonizes   well  with  "  Natural  Selection,"  it  is 
equally  consistent  with   the  rapid  and  sudden  develoj)ment 
of  new  specific  forms  of  life.     Indeed,  Prof.  Huxley,  with  a 
laudable    caution    and    moderation  too  little  observed    by 
some  Teutonic  Darwinians,  guarded  himself  carefully  from 
any  imputation    of   asserting   dogmatically  the   theory    of 
"  Natural  Selection,"  while  upholding  fully  the  doctrine  of 
evolution. 

But,  after  all,  it  is  by  no  means  certain,  though  very 
probable,  that  the  Connecticut  footsteps  were  made  by 
very  ornithic  reptiles,  or  extremely  sauroid  birds.  And  it 
must  not  be  forgotten  that  a  completely  carinate  *  bird  (the 
Archeopteryx)  existed  at  a  time,  when,  as  yet,  we  have  no 
evidence  of  some  of  the  Dinosauria  having  come  into  being. 
Moreover,  if  the  remarkable  and  minute  similarity  of  the 
coracoid  of  a  pterodactyl  to  that  of  a  bird  be  merely  the 
result  of  function,  and  no  sign  of  genetic  affinity,  it  is  not 
inconceivable  that  pelvic  and  leg  resemblances  of  Dinosau- 
ria to  birds  may  be  functional  likewise,  though  such  an  ex- 
planation is,  of  course,  by  no  means  necessary  to  support 
the  view  maintained  in  this  book. 

But  the  number  of  forms  represented  by  many  individ- 
uals, yet  by  7io  transitional  ojies^  is  so  great,  that  only  two 

*  A  bird  with  a  keeled  breastbone,  such  as  almost  all  existing  birds 
possess. 

7 


146 


THE   GENESIS   OF  SPECIES. 


[CUAI'. 


or  tliree  can  be  selected  as  examples.     Thus  those  remark- 
able fossil  reptiles,  the  Ichthyosauria  and  Plcsiosauria,  ex- 


THE  ABCUEOPTERYX   (OF  TUE   OOLITE   8TKATA). 

tended,  through  the  secondary  period,  probably  over  the 
greater  part  of  the  globe.  Yet  no  single  transitional  form 
has  yet  been  met  witli  in  spite  of  the  nuiltitudinous  indi- 
viduals preserved.     Again,  with  their  modern  representa- 


.  j^ltfU'* 


.^^ 


BKKl.KTON   OV  AN   ICllTlIYUHAt'UUtt. 


tives,  the  Cetacea,  one  or  two  aberrant  forms  alone  have 
been  found,  but  no  series  of  transitional  ones  indicating 
minutely  the  line  of  descent.  This  group,  the  whales,  is"  a 
very  marked  one,  and  it  is  curious,  on  Darwinian  principles, 


VI.  1  SPKCIKS   AND   TIMi:.  I47 

th;it  so  few  instances  tcndinG:  to  indicate  its  mode  of  orif'-in 
sliould  liave  presented  themselves.  Here,  as  in  the  bats, 
we  might  surely  expect  that  some  n^lics  of  unquestionably 
incipient  stages  of  its  development  would  have  been  left. 


SKELETON   OF  A   PLESIOSAtrRUa. 


The  singular  order  Chclonia,  including  the  tortoises, 
turtles,  and  terrapins  (or  fresh- water  tortoises),  is  another 
instance  of  an  extreme  form  without  any,  as  yet  known, 
transitional  stages.  Another  group  may  be  finally  men- 
tioned, viz.,  the  frogs  and  toads,  anourous  Batrachians,  of 
which  we  have  at  present  no  relic  of  any  kind  linking  them 
on  to  the  Eft  group  on  the  one  hand,  or  to  reptiles  on  the 
other. 

The  only  instance  in  which  an  approach  toward  a  series 
of  nearly-relattMl  forms  has  been  obtained  is  the  existing 
horse,  its  predecessor  Ilipparion,  and  other  extinct  forms. 
But  even  here  there  is  no  proof  whatever  of  modification 
by  minute  and  infinitesimal  steps;  a  fortiori  no  approach 
to  a  proof  of  modification  by  "  Natural  Selection,"  acting 
upon  indefinite  fortuitous  variations.  On  the  contrary,  the 
series  is  an  admirable  example  of  successive  modification 
in  one  special  direction  along  one  beneficial  line,  and  the 
teleologist  must  here  be  allowed  to  consider  that  one  mo- 
tive of  this  modificatio!!  (among  probably  an  indefinite 
number  of  motives  inconceivable  to  us)  was  the   relation- 


U8  TIIK   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

ship  in  which  the  horse  was  to  stand  to  the  human  iuluibit- 
ants  of  this  planet.  Tiiese  extinct  forms,  as  Prof.  Owen 
remarks,'  "  differ  from  each  other  in  a  greater  degree  than 
do  the  horse,  zebra,  and  ass,"  which  are  not  only  good 
X  zoological  species  as  to  form,  but  are  species  physiologi- 
cally^ i.  e.,  they  cannot  produce  a  race  of  hybrids  fertile 
inter  se. 

As  to  the  mere  action  of  surrounding  conditions,  the 
same  professor  remarks  : ''  *' Any  modification  affecting  the 
density  of  the  soil  might  so  far  relate  to  the  changes  of 
limb-structure,  as  that  a  foot  with  a  pair  of  small  hoofs, 
dangling  by  the  sides  of  the  large  (me,  like  those  behind 
the  cloven  hoof  of  the  ox,  would  cause  the  foot  of  Jlip- 
parion,  e.  g.,  and  a  fortiori  the  broader  based  three-hoofed 
foot  of  the  Palieothere,  to  sink  less  deeply  into  swampy 
soil,  and  be  more  easily  withdrawn  than  the  more  concen- 
tratively  simplified  and  specialized  foot  of  the  horse.  Rhi- 
noceroses and  zebras,  however,  tread  together  the  arid 
plains  of  Africa  in  the  present  day ;  and  the  horse  has 
multiplied  in  that  half  of  America  where  two  or  more 
kinds  of  tapir  still  exist.  That  the  continents  of  the 
Eocene  or  Miocene  periods  were  less  diversified  in  respect 
of  swamp  and  sward,  pampas,  or  deseit,  than  those  of  the 
Pliocene  period,  has  no  support  from  observation  or  anal- 

Not  only,  however,  do  we  fail  to  find  any  traces  of  the 
incipient  stages  of  numerous  very  peculiar  groups  of  ani- 
mals, but  it  is  undeniable  that  there  are  instances  which 
appeared  at  first  to  indicate  a  gradual  transition^  yet  which 
instances  have  been  shown,  by  further  investigation  and  dis- 
covery, not  to  indicate  truly  any  thing  of  the  kind.  Thus 
at  one  time  the  remains  of  Labyrinthodonts,  which,  up  till 
then,  had  been  discovered,  seemed  to  justify  the  oi)inion 
that,  as   time   went  on,  forms   had    successively  ajjpeared 

'  "  Anatomy  of  Vertebrates,"  vol.  iii.,  p.  7i>2.  *  Ibid.,  p.  793. 


VI.  1  SPECIES  AND   TIME.  I49 

with  more  and  more  complete  segmentation  and  ossifica- 
tion of  the  backbone,  which,  in  the  earliest  forms,  w\is  (as 
it  is  in  the  lowest  fishes  now)  a   soft,  continuous  rod  or 


Tnii.oniTE. 


notocliord.  Now,  however,  it  is  considered  probable  that 
the  soft  backboned  Labyrinthodon  Archegosaurus  was  an 
immature  or  larval  form,^  while  Labyrinthodon ts,  with  com- 
plet(^ly  developed  vertcbrrc,  have  been  found  to  exist  among 
the  very  earliest  forms  yet  discovered.  The  same  may  be 
said  regarding  the  eyes  of  the  trilobites,  some  of  the  oldest 
forms  having  been  found  as  w^ell  furnished  in  that  respect 
as  the  very  last  of  the  group  which  has  left  its  remains  ac- 
cessible to  observation. 

Such  instances,  however,  as  well  as  the  way  in  which 
marked  and  special  forms  (as  the  Pterodactyls,  etc.,  before 
referred  to)  appear  at  once  in  and  similarly  disappear  from 
the  geological  record,  are  of  course  explicable  on  the  Dar- 
winian tiieory,  provided  a  sufficiently  enormous  amount  of 
past  time  be  allowed.  Tlie  alleged  extreme,  and  probably 
great,  imperfection  of  that  record  may  indeed  be  pleaded 
in  excuse.     But  it  is  an  excuse."    Nor  is  it  possible  to  deny 

'  As  a  tadpole  is  the  larval  form  of  a  frog. 

^  Afl  Prof.  TTnxloy,  with  his  characteristic  candor,  fully  admitted  in 
his  lecture  on  the  Dinosauria  before  referred  to. 


150  THE    GENESIS   OF   SPECIES.  [Chap. 

the  a  priori  probability  of  the  preservation  of  at  least  a 
few  mlnutelt/  transitional  forms  in  some  instances  if  ever)/ 
species  without  exception  has  arisen  exclusively  by  sucli 
minute  and  gradual  transitions. 

It  remains,  then,  to  turn  tto  the  other  considerations 
with  regard  to  the  relation  of  species  to  time:  namely  (1), 
as  to  the  total  amount  of  time  allowable  by  other  sciences 
for  organic  evolution  ;  and  (2)  the  proportion  existing,  on 
Darwinian  j)rinci})les,  between  the  time  anterior  to  the  ear- 
lier fossils,  and  the  time  since  ;  as  evidenced  by  the  pro- 
portion between  the  amount  of  evolutionary  change  during 
the  latter  epoch  and  that  which  must  have  occurred  ante- 
riorly. 

Sir  William  Thomson  has  lately '  advanced  arguments 
from  three  distinct  lines  of  inquiry,  and  agreeing  in  one  ap- 
proximate result.  The  three  lines  of  incpjiry  were — 1.  The 
action  of  the  tides  upon  the  earth's  rotation.  2.  The  prob- 
able length  of  time  during  which  the  sun  has  illuminated 
this  planet ;  and  3.  Tiie  temperature  of  the  interior  of  the 
earth.  The  result  arrived  at  by  these  investigations  is  a 
conclusion  that  the  existing  state  of  things  on  the  eartli, 
life  on  the  earth,  all  geological  history  showing  continuity 
of  life,  must  be  limited  within  some  such  pt;riod  of  })ast 
time  as  one  hundred  million  years.  Tiie  ilrst  question 
which  suggests  itself,  supposing  Sir  W.  Thomson's  views 
to  be  correct,  is.  Is  this  period  any  thing  like  enough  for 
the  evolution  of  all  organic  forms  by  "Natural  Selection  ?" 
The  second  is.  Is  this  i)eriod  any  thing  like  enough  for  tlie 
disposition  of  the  strata  whicli  nuist  have  been  deposited  if 
all  organic  forms  have  been  evolved  by  minute  steps,  ac- 
cording to  the  Darwinian  theory  ? 

In  the  first  place,  as  to  Sir  William  Thomsom's  views,  the 
author  of  this  book  cannot  j^resume  to  advance  any  opin- 
ion ;  but  the  fact  that  they  have  not  been  refuted,  pleads 

'  "  Transactions  of  the  Geological  Society  of  Glasgow,"  vol.  iii. 


VI.]  SPECIES  AND   TIME.  151 

strongly  in  their  favor  when  we  consider  liow  much  they 
tell  against  the  theory  of  Mr.  Darwin.  The  last-named 
author  only  remarks  that  "  many  of  the  elements  in  the  cal- 
culation are  more  or  less  doubtful."  "  and  Prof.  Huxley  " 
does  not  attempt  to  refute  Sir  W.  Thomson's  arguments, 
but  only  to  show  cause  for  suspense  of  judgment,  inasmuch 
as  the  facts  may  he  capable  of  other  explanations. 

Mr.  Wallace,  on  the  other  liand,"  seems  more  disposed 
to  accept  them,  and,  after  considering  Sir  William's  objec- 
tions and  those  of  Mr.  Croll,  puts  the  probable  date  of  the 
beginning  of  the  Cambrian  deposits  ''  at  only  twenty-four 
million  years  ago.  On  the  other  hand,  he  seems  to  consid- 
er that  specific  change  has  been  more  rapid  than  generally 
supposed,  and  exceptionally  stable  during  the  last  score  or 
so  of  thousand  years. 

Now,  first,  with  regard  to  the  time  required  for  the  evo- 
lution of  all  organic  forms  by  merely  accidental,  minute, 
and  fortuitous  variations,  the  useful  ones  of  which  have 
been  preserved. 

Mr.  Murphy  '*  is  distinctly  of  opinion  that  there  has  not 
been  time  enough.  He  says  :  "  I  am  inclined  to  think  that 
geological  time  is  too  short  for  the  evolution  of  the  higher 
forms  of  life  out  of  the  lower  by  that  accumulation  of  im- 
perceptibly slow  variations,  to  which  alone  Darwin  as- 
cribes the  whole  process." 

"  Darwin  justly  mentions  the  greyhound  as  being  equal 
to  any  natural  species  in  the  perfect  coordination  of  its 
parts,  *  all  adaj)t(Hl  for  extreme  fleetness  and  for  running 
down  weak  prey.'  "  "  Yet  it  is  an  artificial  species  (and 
not  physiologically  a  species  at  all)^  formed  by  long-con- 

'0  "  Origin  of  Species,"  5th  edit.,  p.  354. 

J'  Sec  his  address  to  the  Geological  Society,  on  February  19,  1869. 

'2  See  Nature,  vol.  i.,  p.  399,  February  17,  1870. 

'•''  Ibid.,  vol.  i.,  p.  ATy{. 

'*  "  Habit  and  Intelligence,"  vol.  i.,  p.  344. 


152  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.     .  [Chap. 

tinued  selection  under  domestication;  and  there  is  no 
reason  to  suppose  tliat  any  of  the  variations  whicli  liave 
been  selected  to  form  it  have  been  other  than  gradual  and 
almost  imperceptible.  Suppose  that  it  has  taken  five  hun- 
dred years  to  form  the  greyhound  out  of  l»is  wolf-like  an- 
cestor. This  is  a  mere  guess,  but  it  gives  the  order  of  the 
magnitude."  Now,  if  so,  "  how  long  would  it  take  to  ob- 
tain an  elephant  from  a  protozoon,  or  even  from  a  tadpole- 
like fish  ?  Ought  it  not  to  take  much  more  than  a  million 
times  as  long?  "" 

Mr.  Darwin  "  would  compare  with  the  natural  origin  of 
a  species  "  unconscious  selection,  that  is,  the  preservation 
of  the  most  useful  or  beautiful  animals,  with  no  intention 
of  modifying  the  breed."  He  adds  :  "  But  by  this  process 
of  unconscious  selection,  various  breeds  have  been  sensibly 
changed  in  the  course  of  two  or  three  centuries." 

"  Sensibly  changed  !  "  but  not  formed  into  "  new  spe- 
cies." Mr.  Darwin,  of  course,  could  not  mean  that  species 
generally  change  so  rapidly,  which  would  be  strangely  at 
variance  with  the  abundant  evidence  we  have  of  the  stabil- 
ity of  animal  forms  as  represented  on  Egyptian  monuments 
and  as  shown  by  recent  deposits.  Indeed,  he  goes  on  to 
say  :  "  Species,  however,  probably  change  much  more  slow- 
ly, and  within  the  same  country  only  a  few  change  at  the 
same  time.  This  slowniess  follows  from  all  the  inhabitants 
of  the  same  country  being  already  so  well  adapted  to  each 
other,  that  places  in  the  polit}-  of  Nature  do  not  occur  until 
after  long  intervals,  when  changes  of  some  kind  in  the 
physical  conditions,  or  through  immigration,  have  occurred, 
and  individual  differences  and  variations  of  the  right  na- 
ture, by  which  some  of  the  inhabitants  might  be  better 
fitted  to  their  new  places  under  altered  circumstances, 
might  not  at  once  occur."     This  is  true,  and  not  only  will 

'5  *'  Ilabit  and  Intelligence,"  vol.  i.,  p.  345. 
»«  "Origin  of  Species,"  6th  edit.,  p.  353. 


VI.]  SPECIES   AND   TIME.  I53 

these  cliangcs  occur  at  distant  intervals,  but  it  must  be 
borne  in  mind  that  in  tracing  back  an  animal  to  a  remote 
anccstrj',  we  pass  through  modifications  of  such  rapidly-in- 
creasing number  and  importance  that  a  geometrical  pro- 
gression can  alone  indicate  the  increase  of  periods  which 
such  profound  alterations  would  require  for  their  evolution 
through  "Natural  Selection"  only. 

Thus  let  us  take  for  an  example  the  proboscis  monkey 
of  Borneo  {Scmuopitheeiis  7iasalis).  According  to  Mr.  Dar- 
win's own  opinion,  this  form  might  have  been  "  sensibly 
clianged  "  in  the  course  of  two  or  three  centuries.  Accord- 
ing lo  this,  to  evolve  it  as  a  true  ntid  perfect  species  one 
thousand  years  would  l)e  a  very  moderate  period.  Let 
ten  thousand  years  ])c;  taken  to  represent  approximately'  the 
period  of  su])stantially  conslant  conditif)ns,  during  wliicli 
no  considerable  change  would  be  brought  about.  Now,  it 
one  thousand  years  may  represent  the  period  required  for 
the  evolution  of  the  s[)ecies  S.  nasalis,  and  of  the  other 
species  of  the  genus  Semnopithecus,  ten  times  that  period 
should,  I  think,  be  allowed  for  the  dilTerentiation  of  that 
genus,  the  Africim  Cercopithecus,  and  th(^  other  genera  of 
the  family  Siniiidir — the  differences  between  the  genera 
being  certainly  more  than  tenfold  greater  than  those 
between  the  species  of  the  same  genus.  Again,  we  may 
perliaps  interpose  a  period  of  ten  thousand  years'  com- 
parative repose. 

For  the  differentiation  of  the  families  Simiidrc  and 
Cebidas — so  verv  much  more  distinct  and  diflcrent  than  any 
two  genera  of  either  family — a  jieriod  ten  times  greater 
should,  I  believe,  be  allowed  than  that  required  for  the 
evolution  of  the  subordinate  groups.  A  similarly  increasing 
ratio  should  be  granted  for  the  successive  developments  of 
the  difference  between  the  Lemuroid  and  the  higher  forms 
of  primates  ;  for  those  between  the  original  primate  and 
other  root-forms  of  placental  mammals  ;  for  those  between 


154  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Cr. 

primary  placental  and  implaccntal  mannnals,  and  perhaps 
also  for  the  divergence  of  the  most  ancient  stock  of  these 
and  of  the  monotremes,  for  in  all  these  cases  modifications 
of  structure  appear  to  increase  in  complexity  in  at  least 
that  ratio.  Finally,  a  vast  i)eriod  must  be  granted  for  the 
development  of  the  lowest  mannnalian  type  from  the  prim- 
itive stock  of  the  whole  vertebrate  sub-kingdom.  Sup- 
posing this  priniitive  stock  to  have  arisen  directly  from  a 
very  lowly-organized  animal  indeed  (such  as  a  nematoid 
worm,  or  an  ascidian,  or  a  jelly-fish),  yet  it  is  not  easy  to 
believe  that  less  than  two  thousand  million  years  would 
be  required  for  the  totality  of  animal  development  by  no 
other  means  than  minute,  fortuitous,  occasional,  and  inter- 
mitting variations  in  all  conceivable  directions.  If  this  be 
even  an  approximation  to  the  truth,  then  there  seem  to  be 
strong  reasons  for  believing  that  geological  time  is  not  sulh- 
cient  for  such  a  process. 

The  second  question  is,  whether  there  has  been  time 
enough  for  the  deposition  of  the  strata  which  iimst  have 
been  deposited,  if  all  organic  forms  have  been  evolved 
according  to  the  Darwinian  theory? 

Now  this  may  at  first  seem  a  question  for  geologists 
only,  but,  in  fact,  in  this  matter  geology  must  in  some  re- 
spects rather  take  its  time  from  zoology  than  the  reverse; 
for  if  Mr.  Darwin's  theory  be  true,  past  time,  down  to  the 
deposition  of  the  Upper  Silurian  strata,  can  have  been  but  a 
very  small  fraction  of  that  during  which  strata  have  been 
deposited.  For  when  those  Ui)per  Silurian  strata  were 
formed,  organic  evolution  had  alrtjady  run  a  great  part  of 
its  course,  jjcrhaps  the  longest,  slowest,  and  most  dini(;ult 
part  of  that  course. 

At  that  ancient  epoch,  not  only  were  the  verte])rate, 
molluscous,  and  arthropod  types  distinctly  and  clearly 
differentiated,  but  highly-developed  forms  had  been  pro- 
duced in  each  of  these  sub-kingdoms.     Thus  in  the  Verte- 


VI.] 


SPECIES  AND   TIME. 


156 


brata  there  were  fishes  not  belonging  to  tlie  lowest  but  to 
the  very  highest  groups  which  are  known  to  have  ever  been 
developed,  nmnely,  the  Elasmobranchs  (the  highly-organ- 
ized sharks  and  rays),  and  the  Ganoids,  a  group  now  poorly 
represented,  ])ut  for  which  the  sturgeon  may  stand  as  a 
type,  and  wliich  in  many  important  respects  more  nearly 
resemble    higher    Vertebra ta    than    do     the    ordinary   or 


B 


CUTTLE-FISn. 

A.  Ventral  nepcct.  B.  Dorsal  n?pcct. 


osseous  fishes.  Fislies  in  which  the  ventral  fins  are  placed 
in  front  of  the  pectoral  ones„(i.e.,  jugular  fishes)  have  been 
generally  considered  to  be  comparatively  modern  forms. 
But  Prof.  Huxley  has  kindly  informed  me  that  he  has  dis- 
covered a  jugular  fish  in  the  Permian  deposits. 

Amonor  tlic  molluscous  animals  we  have  members  of 
the  very  higlicst  known  class,  namely,  the  Cephalopods,  or 
cuttle-fish  class ;  and  among  articulated  animals  we  find 
Trilobites  and   Eurypterida,  which  do  not  belong  to  a!iy 


15G  THE   GENESIS   OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

incipient  worm-like  group,  but  are  distinctly  differentiated 
Crustacea  of  no  low  form. 

We  have  in  all  these  animal  types  nervous  systems 
differentiated  on  distinctly  different  patterns,  fully-formed 
organs  of  circulation,  digestion,  excretion,  and  generation, 
complexly-constructed  eyes  and  other  sense  organs;  in  fact, 
all  the  most  elaborate  and  complete  animal  structures  built 
up,  and  not  only  once,  for  in  the  fishes  and  mollusca  we 
have  (as  described  in  the  third  chapter  of  this  work)  the 
coincidence  of  the  independently-developed  organs  of 
sense  attaining  a  nearly  similar  complexity  in  two  quite 
distinct  forms.  If,  then,  so  small  an  advance  has  been 
made  in  fishes,  moUusks,  and  anthropods,  since  the  Upper 
Silurian  deposits,  it  will  probably  be  within  the  mark  to 
consider  that  the  period  before  those  deposits  (during  which 
all  these  organs  would,  on  the  Darwinian  theory,  have 
slowly  built  up  their  different  perfections  and  complexities) 
occupied  time  at  least  a  hundredfold  greater. 

Now  it  will  be  a  moderate  computation  to  allow 
25,000,000  years  for  the  deposition  of  the  strata  down  to 
and  includmg  the  Upper  Silurian.  If,  then,  the  evolution- 
ary work  done  during  this  deposition  only  represents  a 
hundredth  part  of  the  sum  total,  we  shall  require 
2,500,000,000  (two  thousand  five  hundred  million)  years 
for  the  complete  development  of  the  whole  animal  kingdom 
to  its  present  state.  Even  one-quarter  of  this,  however, 
would  far  exceed  the  time  which  physics  and  astronomy 
seem  able  to  allow  for  the  completion  of  the  process. 

Finally,  a  difficulty  exists  as  to  the  reason  of  the  ab- 
sence of  rich  fossiliferous  deposits  in  the  oldest  strata — 
if  life  was  then  as  abundant  and  varied  as,  on  the  Darwinian 
theory,  it  must  have  been.  Mr.  Darwin  himself  admits" 
"  the  case  at  present  must  remain  inexplicable  ;  and  may 
be  truly  urged  as  a  valid  argument  against  the  views  '* 
entertained  in  his  book. 


n  « 


Griffin  of  Species,"  5th  edit.,  p.  381. 


VI.]  SPECIES   AND   TliME.  15'j' 

Thus,  then,  we  find  a  wonderful  (and,  on  Darwinian 
principles,  an  all  but  inexplicable)  absence  of  minutely 
transitional  forms.  All  the  most  marked  groups,  bats, 
pterodactyls,  chelonians,  ichthyosauria,  anoura,  etc.,  appear 
at  once  upon  the  scene.  Ev^en  the  horse,  the  animal  whose 
pedigree  has  been  probably  best  preserved,  affords  no 
eonchisivc  evidence  of  specific  origin  by  infinitcflinial, 
fortuitous  variations ;  while  some  forms,  as  the  labyrintho- 
donts  and  trilobites,  which  seemed  to  exhibit  gradual 
change,  are  shown  by  further  investigation  to  do  nothing 
of  the  sort.  As  regards  the  time  required  for  evolution 
(whether  estimated  by  the  probably  minimum  period  re- 
quired for  organic  change,  or  for  the  deposition  of  strata 
which  accompanied  that  change),  reasons  have  been  sug- 
gested why  it  is  likely  that  the  past  history  of  the  earth 
does  not  supply  us  willi  enough :  First,  because  of  the 
prodigious  increase  in  the  importance  and  number  of 
differences  and  modifications  which  we  meet  with  as  we 
traverse  successively  greater  and  more  primary  zoological 
groups  ;  and,  secondly,  because  of  the  vast  series  of  strata 
necessarily  deposited  if  the  period  since  the  Lower  Silurian 
marks  but  a  small  fraction  of  the  period  of  organic  evolution. 
Finally,  the  absence  or  rarity  of  fossils  in  the  oldest  rocks 
is  a  point  at  present  inexplicable,  and  not  to  be  forgotten 
or  neglected. 

Now  all  these  difTiculties  are  avoided  if  we  admit  that 
new  forms  of  animal  life  of  all  degrees  of  complexify  ap- 
pear from  time  to  time  with  comparative  suddenness,  be- 
ing evolved  according  to  laws  in  part  depending  on  sur- 
rounding conditions,  in  part  internal — similar  to  the  way  in 
which  crystals  (and,  perhaps  from  recent  researches,  the 
lowest  forms  of  life)  build  themselves  up  according  to  the 
internal  laws  of  their  component  substance,  and  in  harmony 
and  correspondence  with  all  environing  influences  and 
conditions. 


158  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  CnAr. 


CHAPTER  Vir. 

SPECIES    AND    SPACE. 

The  Geographical  Distribution  of  Anlmala  presents  DiUlculties. — These  not  Insur- 
mountable in  themselves;  harmonize  with  other  Difliculties. — Frosh-wuter 
Fishes. — Forms  common  to  Africa  and  India;  to  Africa  and  South  America; 
to  China  and  Australia;  to  North  America  and  China;  to  New  Zealand  and 
South  America;  to  South  America  and  Tasmania;  to  South  America  and 
Australia. — Plcurodont  Lizards. — Insectivorous  Mammals. — Similarity  of  Euro- 
pean and  South  Aniericiin  Frogs. — Analogy  between  Europoan  Salmon  and 
Fishes  of  New  Zealand,  etc. — An  Ancient  Antarctic  Continent  probable. — 
Other  Modes  of  accounting  for  Facts  of  Distribution. — Independent  Origin  of 
Closely-similar  Forms. — Conclusion. 

TuE  study  of  the  distribution  of  animals  over  the  earth^s 
surface  presents  us  with  many  facts  havin<r  certain  not 
unimportant  bearings  on  the  question  of  specific  origin. 
Among  these  are  instances  which,  at  least  at  first  siglit, 
appear  to  conflict  with  tlie  Darwinian  theory  of  "  Natural 
Selection."  It  is  not,  however,  here  contended  that  siicii 
facts  do  by  any  means  constitute  by  themselves  obstacles 
which  cannot  be  got  over.  Indeed,  it  would  be  diflicult  to 
imagine  any  obstacles  of  the  kind  which  could  not  be  sur- 
mounted by  an  indcfniite  number  of  terrestrial  modifica- 
tions of  surface — submergences  and  emergences — ^junctions 
and  separations  of  continents  in  all  directions  and  combina- 
tions of  any  desired  degree  of  frequency.  All  this  being 
supplemented  by  the  intercalation  of  armies  of  enemies, 
multitudes  of  ancestors  of  all  kinds,  and  myriads  of  con- 
necting forms,  whose  ralson  cVetrc  may  be  siinj)ly  their 
utility  or  necessity  for  the  support  of  the  theory  of  ''Natu- 
ral Selection." 


VII.J  SPKCIES   AND   SPACK.  I59 

Nov'ortliolcss,  when  brouglit  in  merely  to  supplement 
and  accentuate  considerations  and  arguments  derived  from 
otlier  sources,  in  that  case  dilFiculties  connected  "vrilh  the 
geographical  distribution  of  animals  are  not  without  sig- 
nificance, and  are  worthy  of  mention  even  though,  by  them- 
selves, they  constitute  but  feeble  and  more  or  less  easily 
explicable  i)uzzles  which  could  not  alone  suflice  either  to 
sustain  or  to  defeat  any  theory  of  specific  organization. 

Many  facts  as  to  the  present  distribution  of  animal  life 
over  the  world  are  very  readily  explicable  by  the  hypothe- 
sis of  slight  elevations  and  depressions  of  larger  and 
smaller  j)arts  of  its  surface,  but  there  are  others  the  exist- 
ence of  whicli  it  is  much  more  difficult  so  to  explain. 

The  distril)ution  either  of  animals  possessing  the  pow(»r 
of  flight,  or  of  inhabitants  of  the  ocean,  is,  of  course,  easily 
to  be  accounted  for;  the  diniculty,  if  there  is  really  an}', 
must  mainly  be  with  strictly  terrestrial  animals  of  mod- 
erate or  small  powers  of  locomotion  and  with  inhabit- 
ants of  fresh  water.  Mr.  Darwin  himself  observes,*  "  In 
regard  to  fish,  I  believe  that  the  same  species  never  occur 
in  the  fresh  waters  of  distant  continents."  Now,  the  au- 
thor is  enabled  by  the  lal)ors  and  through  the  kindness  of 
Dr.  GUnther,  to  show  that  this  belief  cannot  be  maintained ; 
he  having  been  so  obliging  as  to  call  attention  to  the  fol- 
lowing facts  with  regard  to  fish-distrilnition.  These  facts 
show  that  though  only  one  species  which  is  absolutely  and 
exclusively  an  inhabitant  of  fresh  water  is  as  yet  known  to 
be  found  in  distant  continents,  yet  that  in  several  other 
instances  the  same  species  is  found  in  the  fresh  water  of 
distant  continents,  and  that  very  often  the  same  r/outs  is 
so  distributed. 

Tlie  genus  Jfastaconhelus  belongs  to  a  family  of  fresh- 
water Indian  fishes.     Eight  species  of  this  genus  are  de- 

'  "  Origin  of  Species,"  5th  edit.  18G9,  p.  4G3. 


160  THE   GENESIS   OF   SPECIES.  [Chap. 

scribed  b}'  Dr.  Guiither  in  liis  catalogue.'  These  forms  ex- 
tend from  Java  and  liorneo  on  the  one  hand,  to  Aleppo  on 
the  other.  Nevertheless  a  new  species  (71/.  cryptacanthus) 
has  been  described  by  the  same  aumor/  which  is  an  in- 
habitant of  the  Camaroon  country  of  'Western  Africa.  He 
observes :  "  Tlie  occurrence  of  Indian  fornis  on  the  West 
Coast  of  Africa,  such  as  Periophthalmus^  Psettus^  Jfasta- 
cembeluSj  is  of  the  highest  interest,  and  an  almost  new  fact 
in  our  knowledge  of  the  geographical  distribution  of  fishes." 

Ophiocephalus,  again,  is  a  truly  Indian  genus,  there 
being  no  less  than  twenty-five  species,*  all  from  the  fresh 
waters  of  the  East  Indies.  Yet  Dr.  Giinther  informs  me 
that  there  is  a  species  in  the  Upper  Nile  and  in  West 
A  frica. 

The  acanthopterygian  family  (Lahyrinthici)  contains 
nine  fresh-water  genera,  and  these  are  distributed  between 
the  East  Indies  and  South  and  Central  Africa. 

The  Carp  fishes  (Cypronoids)  are  found  in  India,  Africa, 
and  Madagascar,  but  there  are  none  in  Soutli  America. 

Tiius  existing  fresh-water  fishes  point  to  an  immediate 
connection  between  Africa  and  India,  harmonizing  with 
what  we  learn  from  Miocene  mammalian  remains. 

On  the  otiier  hand,  tlie  Ciiaracinid;e  (a  family  of  the 
physostomous  fishes)  are  found  in  Africa  and  South  Amer- 
ica, and  not  in  India,  and  even  its  component  groups  are 
so  distributed, — namely,  the  T'etragonopterina^  and  the 
Ilydrocyonin  a. ' 

Again,  we  have  similar  phenomena  in  that  almost  ex- 
clusively fresh-water  group  the  Siluroids. 

'  See  his  Catalogue  of  Acantliopterygian  Fishes  in  the  British  Mu- 
seum, vol.  iii.,  p.  540. 

3  Proe.  Zool.  Soc.,  1807,  p.  102,  and  Ann.  Mag.  of  Nat.  Hist.  vol.  xx., 
p.  110. 

*  See  Catalogue,  vol.  iii.,  p.  469. 

'  Ibid.,  vol.  v.,  p.  311.  «  Ibid.,  p.  345. 


VII.]  SPECIES  AND   SPACE.  161 

Thus  the  genera  Clarias''  Ileterohranchits*  vltg  found 
both  in  Africa  and  tlie  East  Indies.  Plotosus  is  found  in 
Africa,  India,  and  Australia,  and  tlie  species  P.  anguillarU* 
lias  been  brought  from  both  China  and  Morcton  Bay. 
Here,  tlierefore,  we  have  the  same  species  in  two  distinct 
geographical  regions.  It  is,  however,  a  coast  fish,  which, 
though  entering  rivers,  3'et  lives  in  the  sea. 

Eatropius  '"  is  an  African  genus,  but  E.  ohtusirostris 
comes  from  India.  On  the  other  hand,  Amhtrits  is  a  North 
American  form;  but  one  species,  A.  Canto)iensis"  comes 
from  Cliina. 

The  genus  Gfalaxias  "  has  at  least  one  species  common 
to  New  Zealand  and  South  America,  and  one  conunon  to 
South  America  and  Tasmania.  In  tliis  genus  we  thus  have 
an  absolute!}'  and  completely  fresh-water  form  of  the  very 
same  species  distributed  between  different  and  distinct  geo- 
graphical regions. 

Of  the  lower  fishes,  a  lamprey,  3fordacia  mordax^^*  is 
common  to  South  Australia  and  Chili ;  while  another  form 
of  the  same  family,  namely,  Geotria  Ghiletisis,^*  is  found 
not  only  in  South  America  and  Australia,  but  in  New  Zea- 
land also.  These  fishes,  however,  probably  pass  part  of 
their  lives  in  the  sea. 

We  thus  certainly  have  several  species  which  are  com- 
mon to  the  fresh  waters  of  distant  continents,  although  it 
cannot  be  certainly  affirmed  that  they  are  exclusively  and 
entirely  fresh-water  fishes  throughout  all  their  lives  except 
in  the  case  of  Galaxias. 

Existing  forms  point  to  a  close  union  between  South 
America  and  Africa  on  the  one  hand,  and  between  South 
America,  Australia,  Tasmania,  and  New  Zealand,  on  the 
other ;  but  these  unions   were  not  synchronous  any  more 

'  See  Catalogue,  vol.  ill.,  p.  13.  "  Ibid.,  p.  21. 

•  Ibid.,  vol.  v.,  p.  24,  'o  Ibid.,  p.  52.  "  Ibid.,  p.  100. 

"  Ibid.,  vol.  vl.,  208.      "  Ibid.,  vol.  viii.,  p.  507.         '*  Ibid.,  p.  609. 


162 


THE   GENESIS   OF  SPEflKS. 


[Chap. 


tlian  the  unions  indicated  between  India  and  Australia, 
CJiina  and  Australia,  China  and  North  xVmerica,  and  India 
and  Africa. 

Pleurodont  lizards  are  such  as  have  the  teeth  attached 
by  their  sides  to  the  inner  surface  of  the  jaw,  in  contradis- 
tinction to  acrodont  lizards,  which  have  the  bases  of  their 
teeth  ancliylosed  to  the  summit  of  the  margin  of  the  jaw. 


INNER   SIDE   OK   LOWER   JAW   OF   I'LEUKODONT   LIZARD. 

(Showiuy  the  teeth  attached  to  the  inner  surface  of  its  side.) 


Now  pleurodont  iguanian  lizards  abound  in  the  South 
American  region  ;  but  nowliere  else,  and  are  not  as  yet 
known  to  inhabit  any  part  of  the  present  Continent  of  Africa. 
Yet  pleurodont  lizards,  strange  to  say,  are  found  in  Mada- 
gascar. Tills  is  the  more  remarkable,  inasmucli  as  we  have 
no  evidence  yet  of  the  existence  in  Madagascar  of  fresh- 
water fishes  connnon  to  Africa  and  South  America, 

Again,  that  remarkable  island  Madagascar  is  the  home 
of  very  singular  and  special  insectivorous  beasts  of  the 
genera  Centetes,  Ericulus,  and  Echinops ;  while  the  only 
other  member  of  the  group  to  which  they  belong  is  Solen- 
odon,  which  is  a  resident  in  the  West  Indian  Islands,  Cuba, 
and  Hayti.  The  connection,  however,  between  the  West 
Indies  and  Madagascar  must  surely  have  been  at  a  time 
when  the  great  lemurine  group  Avas  absent;  for  it  is  diffi- 
cult to  understand  tlie  spread  of  such  a  form  as  Solenodon, 
and  at  the  same  time  the  non-extension  of  the  active  le- 
murs, or  their  utter  extirpation,  in  such  a  congenial  locality 
as  the  West  Indian  Archipelago. 


VII.] 


SPECIES  AND   SPACE. 


1G3 


The  close  connection  of  South  America  and  Australia 
is  demonstrated  (on  the  Darwinian  theory),  not  only  from 
the  marsupial  fauna  of  both,  hut  also  from  the  frogs  and 
toads  which  respectively  inhabit  those  regions.  A  truly 
remarkable  similarity  and  parallelism  exist,  however,  be- 
tween certain  of  the  same  animals  inhabiting  Southwest- 
ern America  and  Kur()j)o.  'J'hus  Dr.  GUnther  has  de- 
scri!)ed  '^  a  frog  from  Chili  by  the  name  of  cacotus,  which 
singularly  resembles  the  European  bombinator. 


80LF.N0D0N. 


Again  of  tlie  salmons,  two  genera  from  South  America, 
New  Zealand,  and  Australia,  are  analogous  to  European 
salmons. 

In  addition  to  this  may  be  mentioned  a  quotation  from 
Prof.  Dana,  given  by  Mr.  Darwin,'"  to  the  effect  that  "  it  is 

"^  Troc.  Zool.  Soc,  1808,  p.  482. 

'6  "Origin  of  Species,"  6th  edit.,  18G0,  p.  4R4. 


164  THE   GENESIS   OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

certainly  a  wonderful  fact  that  New  Zealand  should  have 
a  closer  resemblance  in  its  Crustacea  to  Great  Britain,  its 
antipode,  than  to  an}--  other  part  of  the  world : "  and  Mr. 
Darwin  adds  :  "Sir  J.  Richardson  also  speaks  of  the  re;l|>- 
pearance  on  the  shores  of  New  Zealand,  Tasmania,  etc.,  of 
northern  forms  of  fish.  Dr.  Hooker  informs  me  that 
twenty-five  species  of  algaa  are  common  to  New  Zealand 
and  to  Europe,  but  have  not  been  found  in  the  intermedi- 
ate tropical  seas." 

Many  more  examples  of  the  kind  could  easily  be 
broug-lit,  but  these  must  suffice.  As  to  the  last-mentioned 
cases,  Mr.  Darwin  explains  them  by  the  influence  of  the 
glacial  epoch,  which  he  would  extend  actually  across  the 
equator,  and  thus  account,  among  other  things,  for  the 
appearance  in  Chili  of  frogs  having  close  genetic  relations 
with  European  forms.  But  it  is  diilicult  to  understand  the 
persistence  and  preservation  of  such  exceptional  forms  with 
the  extirpation  of  all  the  others  w^hich  j)robably  accom- 
panied them,  if  so  great  a  migration  of  northern  kinds  had 
been  occasioned  bv  the  glacial  epoch. 

Mr.  Darwin  candidly  says,*'  "  I  am  far  from  su})posing 
that  all  difficulties  in  regard  to  the  distribution  and  atlini- 
ties  of  the  identical  and  allied  species,  which  now  live  so 
widely  separated  in  the  North  and  South,  and  sometimes 

on  the  intermediate  mountain-ranges,  are  removed." 

"  We  cannot  say  wh}^  certain  species  and  not  others  have 
migrated  ;  why  certain  species  have  been  modified  and 
have  given  rise  to  new  forms,  while  others  have  remained 
unaltered."  Again  he  adds  :  "  Various  dilfi(;ulties  also  re- 
main to  be  solved  ;  for  instance,  the  occurrence,  as  shown 
by  Dr.  Hooker,  of  the  same  plants  at  points  so  enormousl}'' 
remote  as  Kerguelen  Land,  New  Zealand,  and  Fuegia;  but 
icebergs,  as  suggested  by  I^yell,  may  have  been  concerned 
in  their  dispersal.     TJie  existence,  at  these  and  other  dis- 

"  "Origin  of  Species,"  5tli  edil.,  p.  459 


VII.]  SPECIES   AND   SPACE.  1(55 

taut  })oints  of  the  southern  hemisphere,  of  species  which, 
though  distinct,  belong-  to  genera  exclusively  confined  to 
the  south,  is  a  more  remarkable  case.  Some  of  these  spe- 
cies are  so  distinct  that  we  cannot  suppose  that  there  has 
been  time  since  the  commencement  of  the  last  glacial  period 
for  their  migration  and  subsequent  modification  to  the  ne- 
cessary degree."  JMr.  Darwin  goes  on  to  account  for  these 
facts  by  the  probable  existence  of  a  rich  antarctic  flora  in  a 
warm  period  anterior  to  the  last  glacial  epoch.  There  are 
indeed  many  reasons  for  thinking  that  a  southern  conti- 
nent, rich  in  living  forms,  once  existed.  One  such  reason 
is  the  way  in  which  struthious  birds  are,  or  have  been,  dis- 
tributed around  the  antarctic  region:  as  the  ostrich  in 
Africa,  tlie  rhea  in  South  Am(;rica,  tiie  emeu  in  Australia, 
the  apteryx,  dinornis,  etc.,  in  New  Zealand,  the  epiornis  in 
Madagascar.  Still  the  existence  of  such  a  land  would 
not  alone  explain  the  various  geographical  cross-relations 
which  have  been  given  above.  It  would  not,  for  example, 
account  for  the  resemblance  between  the  Crustacea  or  fishes 
of  New  Zealand  and  of  England.  It  would,  ho\vever,  go 
far  to  explain  the  identity  (specific  or  generic)  between 
fresh-water  and  other  forms  now  simultaneously  existing 
in  Australia  and  South  America,  or  in  either  or  both  of 
these,  and  New  Zealand. 

Again,  mutations  of  elevation  small  and  gradual  (but 
frequent  and  intermitting),  through  enormous  periods  of 
time — waves,  as  it  were,  of  land  rolling  many  times  in 
many  directions — might  be  made  to  explain  many  difficul- 
ties as  to  geographical  distribution,  and  any  cases  that  re- 
mained would  probably  l)e  capable  of  explanation,  as  being 
isolated  but  allied  animal  forms,  now  separated  indeed,  but 
being  merely  renniants  of  extensive  groups  which,  at  an 
earlier  period,  were  spread  over  the  surface  of  the  earth. 
Thus  none  of  the  facts  here  given  are  any  serious  difficulty 
to  the  doctrine  of  "evolution,"  but  it  is  contended  in  this 


IGG  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

book  that  if  oilier  considerations  render  it  iin])rol)able  tliut 
the  manifestation  ^f  the  successive  forms  of  life  has  been 
brought  about  by  minute,  indefinite,  and  fortuitous  varia- 
tions, tlien  these  facts  as  to  geograpliical  distribution  in- 
tensify that  im})robability,  and  are  so  far  worthy  of  atten- 
tion. 

All  geographical  difhculties  of  tlie  kind  would  be  evaded 
if  we  could    concede  the    probability  of   tlie  independent 
origin,  iu  different  localities,  of  the   same  organic   forms  in 
animals  high  in  the  scale  of  nature.     Similar  causes  nmst 
produce   similar  results,  and  new  reasons   have  been  lately 
adduced   for   believing,   as    regards   the  lowest  oryanlsnis, 
that  the  same  forms  can  arise  and  manifest  themselves  inde- 
pendently.    The  dilliculty   as  to    higher  animals   is,  how- 
ever, much  greater,  as   (on  the  theory  of   evolution)    one 
acting  force  must  always  be  the   ancestral  history  in   each 
case,  and  this  force  must  always  tend  to  go  on  acting  in  the 
same  groove  and  direction  in  the  future  as  it  has  in  the  past. 
So  that  it  is  ditlicult  to  conceive  that  individuals,  the  ances- 
tral history  of  which  is  very  different,  can  ho  acted  upon  by 
all  influences,  external  and  internal,  in  such  diverse  ways 
and  proportions  that  the  results   (unequals  being  added  to 
unequals)  shall  be  equal  and   similar.     Still,  though   highly 
improbable,  this   cannot  be   said  to  be  impossible ;  and  if 
there  is  an  innate  law  of  any  kind  heli)ing  to  determine  spe- 
cific evolution,  this  may  more  or  less,  or  entirely,  neutralize 
or  even  reverse  the  efl'ect  of  ancestral  habit.     Thus,  it  is  quite 
conceivable   that  a  plenrodont   lizard  might    have  arisen   in 
Madagascar  in  perfect  independence  of  the  similarly-formed 
American    lacertilia:  just  as  certain  teeth  of    carnivorous 
and  insectivorous  marsupial  animals  have  been  seen  most 
closely  to  resemble  those  of  carnivorous  and  insectivorous 
placental  beasts  ;  just  as,  again,  the  paddles  of  the  Cetacea 
resemble  in  the  fact  of  a   multiplication  in  the   number  of 
the  phalanges,  the  many-jointed  feet  of  extinct  marine  rep- 


VII.J  SPECIES  AND   SPACE.  1G7 

tiles,  and  as  the  beak  of  the  cuttle-fish  or  of  the  tadpole 
resembles  ihat  of  birds.  We  have  already  seen  (in  Chapter 
ITI.)  that  it  is  impossible,  uj)on  any  hypothesis,  lo  escape 
admittin«r  the  indej^endent  origins  of  closely-similar  forms. 
It  may  be  that  they  are  both  more  frequent  and  more  im- 
])ortant  than  is  generally  thought. 

That    closely-similar   structures    may  arise    without    a 
genetic  relationship  has  been  lately  well  urged  by  Mr.  Ray 
Lankcster."     He  has  brought  this   notion  forward  even  as 
regards  the  bones  of  the  skull  in  osseous  fishes  and  in  mam- 
mals.    He  has  done  so  on  the  ground  that  the  probable 
common  ancest<ir  of  mammals  and  of  osseous  fishes  was  a 
vertebrate  animal  of  so  low  a  type  that  it  could  not  be  sup- 
posed to  have  possessed  a  skull  difTerentiated  into  distinct 
bony  elements — even  if  it  was  bony  at  all.     If  this  was  so, 
then  the  cranial  bones  must  have  had  an  independent  origin 
in  each  class,  and  in  this  case  we  have  the  most  strikingly 
harmonious  and  parallel   results  from  independent  actions. 
For  the  bones  of  the  skull  in  an   osseous  fish  are  so  closely 
conformed  to  those  of  a  mammal,  that  "  both  types  of  skull 
exhibit  many  bones  in  common,"  though  "in  each  type 
some  of  these  bones  acquire  special  arrangements  and  very 
different  magnitudes."  "    And  no  investigator  of  homologies 
doubts  that  a  considerable  number  of  the  bones  which  form 
the  skull  of  any  osseous  fish  are  distinctly  homologous  with 
the  cranial  bones  of  man.     Tiie  occipital,  the  parietal,  and 
frontal,   the  bones   which   surround    the   internal  ear,   the 
vomer,  the  premaxilla,  and  the  quadrate  bones,  may  be  given 
as  examples.     Now  if  such  close  relations  of  homology  can 
be  brought  about  independently  of  any  but  the  most  remote 
genetic  atlinity,  it  would  be  rash  to  aflirm  dogmatically  that 
there  is  any  impossibility  in  the  independent  origin  of  such 
forms  as  centetes  and   solenodon,  or  of  genetically  distinct 

'8  Sec  Ann.  and  Mng.  of  Nnt.  Hist.,  July,  1870,  p.  87. 

"  Prof.  IIuxlcy'8  Lectures  on  the  Elements  of  Coinp.  Anal.,  p.  184. 


168  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

batrachians,  as  similar  to  each  other  as  are  some  of  the  frojrs 
of  South  America  and  of  Europe.  At  the  same  time  such 
phenomena  must  at  present  be  considered  as  very  improb- 
able, from  the  action  of  ancestral  habit,  as  before  stated. 

We  have  seen,  then,  that  the  geographical  distribution 
of  animals  presents  dilliculties,  though  not  insuperable  ones, 
for  the  Darwinian  hypothesis.  If,  however,  other  nnisons 
against  it  appear  of  any  weight — if,  especially,  there  is 
reason  to  believe  that  geological  time  has  not  been  sutlicient 
for  it,  then  it  will  be  well  to  bear  in  mind  the  facts  here 
enumerated.  Tliese  facts,  however,  are  not  opposed  to 
the  doctrine  of  evolution  ;  and  if  it  could  be  established 
that  closely-similar  forms  had  really  arisen  in  complete  in- 
dependence one  of  the  other,  they  would  rather  tend  to 
strengthen  and  to  support  that  theory. 


VIIL]  irOMOLO(JIES.  XC9 


CHAPTER  VIIL 

HOMOLOGIES. 

Animals  itindo  up  of  Tarts  mutually  related  in  Various  Ways. — "Wliat  lloniolopj'  Is 
— Its  Various  Kinds. — Serial  llomolop)-. — I>ateral  Ilomoiopy. — Vertlcnl  Homology. 
— Mr.  Herliert  Hjiencer's  Kxplanations. — An  Internal  Power  necessary,  as  shown  hy 
Facts  of  (.'omparativo  Anatomy. — Of  Teratology. — M.  Pt.  Ililalro. — Prof.  l?iirt  Wilder- 
— Foot-winps.— Faet.s  of  Patliolopy.— Mr.  James  Pacet.— Dr.  William  Hudd.— The 
Existence  of  sueh  an  Internal  Powerof  Individual  Development  dlminlshas  tho  Im- 
probttbillty  of  an  Anftlojjous  Law  of  Spoclflc  Oriylnation. 

That  concrete  whole  wliich  is  spoken  of  as  "  an  indi- 
vidual "  (such,  e.  g.,  as  a  bird  or  a  lobster)  is  formed  of  a 
more  or  less  complex  aggregation  of  parts  which  are 
actually  (from  whatever  cause  or  causes)  grouped  together 
in  a  harmonious  intcrdependcncy,  and  which  have  a  multi- 
tude of  complex  relations  among  themselves. 

The  mind  detects  a  certain-  number  of  these  relations 
as  it  contemplates  the  various  component  parts  of  an 
individual  in  one  or  other  direction — as  it  follows  up 
different  lines  of  thought.  These  perceived  relations, 
though  subjective,  as  relatioiis^  have  nevertheless  an 
objective  foundation  as  real  parts,  or  conditions  of  parts,  of 
real  wholes ;  they  are,  therefore,  true  relations — such,  e.  g., 
as  those  between  the  right  and  left  hand,  between  the  hand 
and  the  foot,  etc. 

The  component  parts  of  each  concrete  whole  have  also 
a  relation  of  resemblance  to  the  parts  of  other  concrete 
wholes,  whether  of  the  same  or  of  different  kinds,  as  the 
resemblance  between  the  hands  of  two  men,  or  that  between 
the  hand  of  a  man  and  the  fore-paw  of  a  cat. 
8 


170  TIIH   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

Now,  it  is  licrc  contended  that  tlie  relationsliips  borne 
one  to  another,  by  various  component  parts,  ini})ly  the  exist- 
ence of  some  innate,  internal  condition,  conveniently  spoken 
of  as  a  i^ower  or  tendency,  which  is  quite  as  mysterious  as  is 
any  innate  condition,  power,  or  tendency,  resulting  in  the 
orderly  evolution  of  successive  specific  nuinifestations. 
These  relationships,  as  also  this  develo])mental  power,  will 
doubtless,  in  a  certain  sense,  be  somewhat  further  explained 
as  science  advances.  But  the  result  will  be  merely  a 
shifting  of  the  inexplicability  a  point  backward,  by  the 
intercalation  of  another  step  between  the  actioA  of  the 
internal  condition  or  power  and  its  external  result.  In  the 
mean  time,  even  if  by  "  Natural  Selection"  we  could  elimi- 
nate the  puzzles  of  the  "  origin  of  species,"  yet  other 
phenomena,  not  less  remarkable  (namely,  those  noticed  in 
this  chapter),  would  still  remain  unex]:)lained  and  as  yet 
inexplicable.  It  is  not  improbable  that,  could  we  arrive  at 
the  causes  conditioning  all  the  comi)lex  inter-rehitions 
between  the  several  parts  of  one  animal,  we  should  at  the 
same  time  obtain  the  key  to  unlock  the  secrets  of  specific 
origination. 

It  is  desirable,  then,  to  see  what  facts  there  are  in 
animal  organization  which  point  to  innate  conditions 
(powers  and  tendencies),  as  yet  unexplained,  and  upon  which 
the  theory  of  "  Natural  Selection  "  is  unable  to  throw  any 
explanatory  light. 

The  facts  to  be  considered  are  the  phenomena  of 
"  homology,"  and  especially  of  serial,  bilateral,  and  vertical 
homology. 

The  word  "homology"  indicates  such  a  relation  between 
two  parts  tliat  they  may  be  said  in  some  sense  to  be  "  the 
same,"  or  at  least  "of  similar  nature."  This  similarity, 
however,  does  not  relate  to  the  ^^se  to  which  parts  arc  put, 
but  only  to  their  relative  position  with  regard  to  other  parts, 
or  to  their  mode  of  origin.     Tliere  are  many  kinds  of  homol- 


VIII.] 


HOMOLOGIES. 


171 


c>^j/  but  it  is   only  necessary  to  consider  the  three  kinds 
above  enumerated. 

The  term  "homologous"  may  be  applied  to  parts  in  two 
individual  animals  of  dilFcrcnt  kinds,  or  to  dilTcrent  i)arls  of 
the  same  individual.  Thus  "  the  right  and  left  hands,"  or 
"  joints  of  the  backbone,"  or  "  the  teeth  of  the  two  jaws," 
are  homologous  parfs  of  the  same  individual.  J3ut  the  arm 
of  a  man,  the  fore-leg  of  the  horse,  the  paddle  of  the  whale, 
and  the  wing  of  the  bat  and  the  bird  are  all  also  homolo^^ous 


■WINO-UONE8   OF   PTERODACTYL,   BAT,   AND   BIRD. 


parts,  yet  of  another  kind,  i.  e.,  they  are  the  same   parts 
existing  in  animals  of  different  species. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  wing  of  the  humming-bird  and 
the  wing  of  the  humming-bird  moth  are  not  homologous  at 
all,  or  in  any  sense ;  for  the  resemblance  between  them 
consists  solely  in  the  use  to  which  they  are  put,  and  is 
therefore  only  a  relation  of  analogy.  Tliere  is  no  relation 
of  homology  between  them,  because  they  have  no  common 
resemblance  as  to  their  relations  to  surrounding  parts,  or 
as  to  their  mode  of  origin.     Similarly,  there  is  no  homology 

'  For  an  enumeration  of  the  more  obvious  liomolopjical  relationships 
see  Ann.  and  Mag.  of  Nat.  Hist,  for  August,  1870,  p.  118. 


172 


THE  GENESIS   OF   SPECIES. 


[Chap. 


between  the  wing  of  tlie  bat  and  that  of  the  flying-dragon, 
for  the  latter  is  formed  of  certain  ribs,  and  not  of  limb- 
bones. 

Homology  may  be  further  distinguished  into  (1)  a  rela- 
tionship which,  on  evolutionary  principles,  would  be  due  to 
descent  from  a  common  ancestor,  as  the  homological  rela- 
tion between  the  arm-bone  of  the  horse  and  that  of  the  ox, 
or  between   the  singular  ankle-bones  of  the  two  lenunine 


SKELETON   OF  THE  FL-ilNO-nKAGOK. 

(Showing  the  elongated  ribs  which  suppoi*  the  Hitting  organ.) 

genera,  clieirogaleus  and  galago,  and  which  relation  has 
been  termed  by  Mr.  Ray  Lankcster  "  homogeny  ;  ^  and  (2) 
a  relationship  induced,  not  derived — such  as  exists  between 
parts  closely  similar  in  relative  position,  but  with  no 
genetic  atfinity,  or  only  a  remote  one,  as  the  homological 
relation  between  the  chambers  of  the  heart  of  a  bat  and 
those  of  a  bird,  or  the  similar  teeth  of  the  tliylacine  and 

'  Sec  Ann.  and  Mag.  of  Nat.  Hist.,  July,  1870. 


vm.j 


UOJIOLOGIES. 


173 


the  (lo^  bcf(>re  spoken  of.     For  this  rehiiionship  Mr.  Hay 
Laiikester  has  proposed  the  term  "  homophisy." 


TARSAL    nONTS   OF   DIFFKRENT   I.EMlTROmfl. 

(Eight  tirsus  of  Galogo ;  left  tarsus  of  Chcirogalcus.) 

"  Serial  liomology  "  is  a  relation  of  resemblance  existing 
between  two  or  more  parts  placed  in  series  one  behind  the 
other  in  the  same  individual.  ,  Examples  of  such  homologucs 


-r^cS^^ 


A  CENTIPEDE. 


are  the  ribs,  or  joints  of  the  backbone  of  a  horse,  or  the 
limbs  of  a  centipede.     The  latter  annual  is  a  striking  ex- 


lU 


THE   GENESIS   OF  SPECIES. 


[Chap. 


ample  of  serial  homology.  The  body  (except  at  its  two 
ends)  consists  of  a  longitudinal  series  of  similar  segments 
Each  segment  supports  a  pair  of  limbs,  and  the  appendages 
of  all  the  segments  (except  as  before)  are  completely  alike 
A  less  complete  case  of  serial  homology  is  })reseuted  by 
Crustacea  (animals  of  the  crab  class),  notably  by  the  squilla 
and  by  the  common  lobster.     In   the  latter  animal  we  have 


BQUILLA. 


a  six-jointed  abdomen  (the  so-called  tail),  in  front  of  which 
is  a  large  solid  mass  (the  cephalo-thorax),  terminated  ante- 
riorly by  a  jointed  process  (the  rostrum).     On  the  under 


VIII.] 


IIOMOLOGIES. 


175 


surface  of  ilic  body  wc  find  a  quantity  of  movable  append- 
ages.      Such  are,   c.  g.,  feelers  (Fig.  0),  jaAvs  (Figs.  G,  7 
and  8),  fool-jaws   (Fig.  5),  claws  and  legs  (Figs.  3  and  4) 
beneath  the  cephalo-thorax ;    and    flat  j)rocesses  (Fig.  2) 
called  "  swimmerets,"  beneath  the  so-called  tail  or   abdo- 
men. 


PABT  OF  THB  SKBUFTOW  OF  TITE  L0B8TEK. 

Now,  these  various  appendages  are  distinct  and  differ- 
ent enough  as  we  see  them  in  the  adult,  but  they  all  appear 
in  the  embryo  as  buds  of  similar  form  and  size,  and  the 
thoracic  limbs  at  first  consist  each  of  two  members,  as  tho 
swimmerets  always  do.  . 


17G 


THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES. 


[Chap. 


W 


'^ 


This  shows  what  great  (lifTerences  may  exist  in  size,  in 
form,  and  in  function,  between  parts  wiiich 
are  developnientally  the  same,  for  all  these 
appendages  are  modiiications  of  one  connuon 
kind  of  structure,  which  becomes  differently 
modified  in  dillerent  situations;  in  other  words, 
they  are  serial  homologues. 

The  segments  of  the  body,  as  they  follow 
one  behind  the  other,  are  also  serially  alike, 
as  is  plainly  seen  in  the  abdomen  or  tail.  In 
the  cephalo-thorax  of  the  lobster^  however, 
this  is  disguised.  It  is  therefore  very  inter- 
esting to  find  that  in  the  other  crustacean 
before  mentioned,  the  squilla,  the  segmenta- 
tion of  the  body  is  more  completely  preserved, 
and  even  the  first  three  segments,  which  go 
to  compose  the  head,  remain  permanently 
distinct. 

Such  an  obvious  and  unmistakable  serial 
repetition  of  parts  does  not  obtain  in  the 
highest  or  back-l)oned  animals,  the  Vertcbrata. 
1'hus,  in  n)an  and  other  mammals,  nothing  of 
the  kind  is  externally  visible,  and  avc  have  to 
penetrate  to  his  skeleton  to  find  such  a  series 
of  homologous  parts. 

There,  indeed,  we  discover  a  number  of 
pairs  of  bones,  each  pair  so  obviously  resem- 
bling the  others,  that  they  all  re(x;ive  a  com- 
mon name — the  ribs.  TIkmo  also  (i.  e.,  in  the 
skeleton)  we  find  a  still  more  remarkable 
series  of  similar  parts,  the  joints  of  the  s})ine 
or  backbone  (vertebne),  which  are  admitted 
by  all  to  possess  a  certain  community  of  structure. 

It  is  in  their  limbs,  however,  that  the  Vertebrata  pre- 


BPINE  or  OALAQO 
ALLKNII. 


viir.]  iioMcn^oGiES.  177 

sent  the  most  obvious  and  strikinfr-  serial  homology — 
almost  the  only  serial  homolog-y  noticeable  externally. 

The  facts  of  serial  homology  seem  hardly  to  have  excited 
the  amount  of  interest  they  certainly  merit. 

Very  many  writers,  indeed,  have  occupied  themselves 
with  investigations  and  speculations  as  to  what  portions 
of  the  leg  and  foot  answer  to  what  ])arts  of  the  arm  and 
hand,  <a  question  which  has  only  recently  received  a  more 
or  less  satisfactory  solution  through  the  successive  con- 
cordant elTorts  of  Prof.  Humphry,^  Prof.  Huxley,*  the 
author  of  this  work,*  and  Prof.  Flower.'  Very  few  writers, 
however,  have  devoted  much  time  or  thought  to  the 
(piestion  of  serial  homology  in  general.  Mr.  Herbert 
Spencer,  indeed,  in  his  very  interesting  "First  Principles 
of  J5iology,"  has  given  forth  ideas  on  this  subject  which 
are  well  worthy  careful  perusal  and  consideration,  and 
some  of  which  apply  also  to  the  other  kinds  of  homology 
mentioned  above.  He  would  explain  the  serial  homologies 
of  such  creatures  as  the  lobster  and  centipede  thus:  Ani- 
mals of  a  very  low  grade  propagate  themselves  by  sponta- 
neous fission.  If  certain  creatures  found  benefit  from  this 
process  of  division  remaining  incomplete,  such  creatures 
(on  the  theory  of  "  Natural  Selection  "  )  would  transmit 
their  selected  tendency  to  such  incomplete  division  to  their 
posterity.  In  this  Avay,  it  is  conceivable  that  animals 
might  arise  in  the  form  of  long  chains  of  similar  segments, 
each  of  which  chains  would  consist  of  a  number  of  imper- 
fectly separated  individuals,  and  be  equivalent  to  a  series 
of  separate  individuals  belonging  to  kinds  in  which  the 
fission  was  complete.  In  other  words,  Mr.  Spencer  would 
ex])lain   it  as    the  coalescence   of    organisms  of   a  lower 

'  Treatise  on  the  Human  Skeleton,  1858. 

^•Iluntorian  Locturoa  for  18G4. 

'  liinnfcan  Traupactions,  vol.  xxv.  p.  .TOR,  IRfifi. 

•  Iluntcrian  Lectures  for  1870,  and  Journal  of  Anat.  for  May,  IS^O. 


178  ,  THE   GENESIS' OF  SPECIES.  [Char 

degree  of  aggregation  in  one  longitudinal  series,  through 
survival  of  the  fittest  aggregations.  This  may  be  so.  It  is 
certainly  an  ingenious  speculation,  but  facts  have  not  yet 
been  brought  forward  which  demonstrate  it.  Had  they 
been  so,  tliis  kind  of  serial  homology  might  be  termed 
"  homogenetic." 

The  other  kind  of  serial  repetitions,  namely,  those  of 
the  vertebral  column,  are  explained  by  Mr.  S])cucer  as  the 
results  of  alternate  strains  and  compressions  acting  on 
a  primitively  homogeneous  cylinder.  The  serial  homology 
of  the  fore  and  hind  limbs  is  explained  by  the  same  writer 
as  the  result  of  a  similarit}'  in  the  influences  and  conditions 
to  which  they  are  exposed.  Serial  homologues  so  formed 
might  be  called,  as  Mr.  Ray  Lankester  has  proposed, 
"  homoplastic."  But  there  are,  it  is  here  contended, 
abundant  reasons  for  thinking  that  the  predominant  agent 
in  the  production  of  the  homologies  of  the  limbs  is  an 
internal  force  or  tendency.  And  if  such  a  power  can  be 
sho'svn  to  be  necessary  in  this  instance,  it  may  also  be 
legitimately  used  to  explain  such  serial  homologies  as  those 
of  the  centipede's  segments  and  of  the  joints  of  the  back- 
l)one.  At  the  same  time  it  is  not,  of  course,  pretended 
that  external  conditions  do  not  contribute  tiieir  own  effects 
in  addition.  The  presence  of  this  internal  power  will  be 
rendered  more  probable  if  valid  arguments  can  be  brought 
forward  against  the  explanations  which  Mr.  Herbert 
Spencer  has  offered. 

Lateral  homology  (or  bilateral  symmetry)  is  the  re- 
semblance between  the  right  and  left  sides  of  an  animal, 
or  of  part  of  an  animal ;  as,  e.  g.,  between  our  right  hand 
and  our  left.  It  exists  more  or  less,  at  one  or  other  time  of 
life,  in  all  animals,  except  some  very  lowly-organized 
creatures.  In  the  highest  animals  this  symmetry  is  laid 
down  at  the  very  dawn  of  life,  the  first  trace  of  the  future 
creature    being   a    longitudinal     streak  —  the    embryonic 


VIII.]  HOMOLOGIES.  179 

"  primitive  groove."  This  kind  of  homology  is  explained 
by  Mr.  Spencer  as  the  result  of  the  similar  way  in  which 
conditions  affect  the  right  and  left  sides  respectively. 

Vertical  homology  (or  vertical  symmetry)  is  the  resem- 
blance existing  between  parts  which  are  placed  one  above 
the  other  bt^neath.  It  is  much  h^ss  general  and  marked 
than  serial  or  lateral  homology.  Nevertheless,  it  is  plainly 
to  be  seen  in  the  tail-region  of  most  fishes,  and  in  the  far- 
extending  dorsal  (back)  and  ventral  (belly)  fins  of  such  kinds 
as  the  sole  and  the  flounder. 

It  is  also  strikingly  shown  in  the  bones  of  the  tail  of 
certjiin  efts,  as  in  Chiofflossa^  where  the  complexity  of  the 
upper  (neural)  arch  is  closely  repealed  by  the  infc_ 
rior  one.  Again,  in  Spderpes  rubra,  where  almost 
vertically  ascending  articular  processes  above  are 
repeated  by  almost  vertically  descending  articular 
processes  below.  Also  in  the  axolotl,  where  there 
are  double  pits,  placed  side  by  side,  not  only  su- 
periorly but  at  the  same  time  inferiorly.'' 

This  kind  of  homology  is  also  explained  by 
Mr.  Spencer  as  the  result  of  the  similarity  of  con- 
ditions affecting  the  two  parts.  Thus  he  explains 
the  very  general  absence  of  symmetry  between  the  "^^■^^"** 
dorsal  and  ventral  surfaces  of  animals  by  the  differ-  ^^^'^^'^ 
ent  conditions  to  which  these  two  surfaces  are  respectively 
exposed,  and  in  the  same  way  he  explains  the  asymmetry 
of  the  flat  fishes  (Plei(ronectidai),  of  snails,  etc. 

Now,  first,  as  regards  Mr.  Spencer's  explanation  of  animal 
forms  by  means  of  the  influence  of  external  conditions,  the 
following  observations  may  be  made  :  Abundant  instances 
are  brought  forward  by  him  of  admirable  adaptation  of 
structure  to  circumstances,  but  as  to  the  immense  major- 

'  Sec  a  Paper  on  the  "  Axial  Skeleton  of  the  Urodela,"  in  Proc.  ZooL 
Soc,  1870,  p.  266. 


180 


THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES. 


[ClIAI- 


ity  of  tliese  it  is  very  diiFicult,  if  not  impossible,  to  see 
how  external  conditions  can  have  produced,  or  even 
tended  to  have  produced  them.  For  exaniple,  we  may  take 
the  migration  of  one  eye  of  the  sole  to  Ihu  other  side 
of  its  head.  What  is  there  here  either  in  the  darkness,  or 
the  friction,  or  in  any  other  conceivable  external  cause,  to 


PLKUBONECTTD^    WITH    TUB    PECCLIABLY-I'LACED    EYE   IN  DIFKEKENT   POBITIUNS. 


Iiave  produced  the  first  beginning  of  such  an  unprecedented 
displacement  of  the  eye  ?  Mr.  Spencer  has  beautifully 
illustnited  tliat  correlation  "vvhich  all  must  admit  to  exist 
between  the  forms  of  organisms  and  their  surrounding  exter- 
nal conditions,  but  by  no  means  proved  that  the  latter  are 
the  cause  of  the  former. 

Some  internal  conditions  (or  in  ordinary  language  some 
internal  power  and  force)  must  be  conceded  to  living  organ- 
isms, otherwise  incident  forces  must  act  upon  them  and 
upon  non-living  aggregations  of  matter  in  the  same  way,  and 
with  similar  effects. 

If  the  mere  presence  of  these  incident  forces  produces 
so  ready  a  response  in  animals  and  })hints,  it  must  be 
that  there  are,  in  their  case,  conditions  disposing  and 
enabling  them  so  to  respond,  according  to  the  old  maxim, 


VIII.]  UOMOLOGIES.  181 

Qnicqnid  reeipitur^  reciprtur  ad  modum  recipientis^  as  the 
same  rays  of  light  Mhicli  bleach  a  piece  of  silk,  blacken 
nitrate  of  silver.  If,  therefore,  we  attribute  the  forms  of 
organisms  to  the  action  of  external  conditions,  i.  e.,  of  inci- 
dent forces  on  their  modifiable  structure,  we  give  but  a 
partial  account  of  the  matter,  removing  a  step  back,  as  it 
were,  tlic  action  of  the  internal  condition,  power,  or  force 
which  must  be  conceived  as  occasioning  such  ready  moditi- 
a])ility.  But  indeed  it  is  not  at  all  easy  to  see  how  the 
influence  of  the  surfiice  of  the  ground  or  any  conceivable 
condition  or  force  can  produce  the  diflerence  which  exists 
])et\veen  the  ventral  and  dorsal  shields  of  the  carapace  of 
a  tortoise,  or  l)y  what  dilV('ren(u»s  of  merely  external  causes 
the  ovaries  of  the  two  sides  of  the  body  can  be  made  equal 
in  a  bat  and  unequal  in  a  bird. 

There  is,  on  the  other  hand,  an  a  priori  reason  why  we 
should  expect  to  find  that  the  symmetrical  forms  of  all  ani- 
mals are  due  to  internal  causes.     This  reason  is  the  fact 


b  'b        I 


AN    ErjllNlTS,    on   BEA-UKCIIIN. 

(The  spines  removed  from  one-half.) 


that  the  symmetrical  forms  of  minerals  are  undoubtedly  due 
to  such  causes.  It  is  unnecessary  here  to  do  more  than  al- 
lude to  the  beautiful  and  complex  forms  presented  by  inor- 


182  THE  GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

ganic  structures.     With  regard  to  organisms,  however,  the 
wonderful  Acantliometrae  and  the  Polycystina  may  be  men- 
tioned as  presenting  complexities  of  form  which  can  hardly 
be  thought  to  be  due  to  other  than  internal  causes.     The 
same  may  be  said  of  the  great  group  of  Echinoderms,  with 
their  amazing  variety  of  component  jxirts.     If,  then,  internal 
forces  can  so  build  uj)  the  most  varied  structures,  they  are 
surely  capable  of  producing  the  serial,  lateral,  and  vertical 
symmetries  which  higher  animal  forms  exhibit.     Mr.  Spen- 
cer is  the  more  bound  to  admit  this,  inasmuch  as  in  his  doc- 
trine of  "  physiological  units  "  he  maintains  that  these  or- 
ganic atoms  of  his  have  an  innate  power  of  building  up  and 
evolving  the  whole  and  perfect  animal  from  which  they 
were  in  each  case  derived.     To  build  up  and  evolve  the 
various  symmetries  here  spoken  of  is  not  one  whit  more 
mysterious.      Directly  to  refute    Mr.    S])encer's  assertion, 
liowever,  w^ould  recpiire  the  bringing  forward  of  examples 
of  organisms  which  are  ill-adapted  to  their  positions,  and 
out  of  harmony  with   their  surroundings — a  diilicult  task 
indeed.' 

Secondly,  as  regards  the  last-mentioned  author's  expla- 
nation of  such  serial  homology  as  exists  in  the  centi])ede  and 
its  allies,  the  very  groundwork  is  open  to  objection.  Mul- 
tiplication by  spontaneous  fission  seems  from  some  recent 

®  Just  as  Buffon's  superfluous  lament  over  the  unfortunate  organiza- 
tion of  the  sloth  has  been  shown,  by  the  increase  of  our  knowledge,  to 
have  been  uncalled  for  and  absurd,  so  other  supposed  instances  of  non- 
adaptation  will,  no  doubt,  similarly  disappear.  Mr.  Darwin,  in  liis  "  Ori- 
gin of  Species,"  5th  edition,  p.  220,  speaks  of  u  woodpecker  {Culajjles 
campestris)  as  having  an  organization  quite  at  variance  with  its  habits, 
and  as  never  climbing  a  tree,  though  possessed  of  the  special  arboreal 
structure  of  other  woodpeckers.  It  now  appears,  however,  from  the  ob- 
servations of  Mr.  AV.  II.  Iludson,  C.  M.  Z.  S.,  that  its  habits  are  in  har- 
mony with  its  structure.  See  Mr.  Hudson's  third  letter  to  the  Zoological 
Society,  published  in  the  Proceedings  of  that  Society  for  March  24,  1870, 
p.  159. 


VIII.] 


HOMOLOGIES. 


183 


researches  to  be  much  less  frequent  than  lias  been  sup- 
posed, and  more  evidence  is  required  as  to  the  fact  of  the 
habitual  propagation  of  any  planariae  in  this  fashion.*  But 
even  if  this  were  as  asserted,  nevertheless  it  fails  to  explain 


AN    ANNELID   DIVTDTNO    BPONTANEOUSLT. 

(A  new  head  having  been  formed  toward  the  hinder  end  of  the  body  of  the  parent) 

the  peculiar  condition  presented  by  Syllis  and  some  other 
annelids,  where  a  new  head  is  formed  at  intervals  in  certain 
segments  of  the  body.     Here  there  is  eWdently  an  innate 

•  Dr,  Cobboid  has  informed  the  author  that  he  has  never  observed 
a  planaria  divide  ppontancoiisl}',  and  he  is  skeptical  as  to  that  process 
taking  place  at  all.  Dr.  II,  Charlton  IJastian  has  also  stated  that,  in  spilo 
of  much  observation,  he  has  never  seen  the  process  in  vorticella. 


184  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

tendency  to  tlie  devclopnicnt  nt  intervals  of  a  complex 
"wbole.  It  is  not  the  budding  out  or  spontaneous  fission 
of  certain  seguients,  but  the  transformation  in  a  definite 
and  very  peculiar  manner  of  parts  which  already  exist  into 
other  and  more  complex  parts.  Again,  the  processes  of 
develoi:)ment  presented  by  some  of  these  creatures  do  not 
by  any  means  point  to  an  origin  through  the  linear  coales- 
cence of  primitively  distinct  animals  by  means  of  imperfect 
segmentation.  Thus  in  certain  Diptera  (two-winged  flies) 
the  legs,  wings,  eyes,  etc.,  are  derived  from  masses  of  form- 
ative tissue  (termed  imaginal  disks),  which  by  their  nnitual 
approximation  together  build  uj)  parts  of  the  head  and 
body,"  recalling  to  mind  the  development  of  l^Jchinoderms. 

Again,  Nicholas  Wagner  found  in  certain  other  ])i})tera, 
tlie  Hessian  flies,  that  the  larva  gives  rise  to  secondary  lar- 
v:e  within  it,  which  develop  and  buist  the  body  of  the  pri- 
mary larva.  Tlie  secondary  larvie  give  rise,  similarly,  to 
another  set  within  them,  and  these  again  to  another ''  set. 

Again,  the  fact,  that  in  Twnia  echhiococcus  one  q^^^ 
produces  mnnerous  individuals,  tends  lo  invalidate  the  ar- 
gument that  the  increase  of  segments  during  (lt!vel()[)ment 
is  a  relic  of  specific  genesis. 

Mr.  H.  Spencer  seems  to  deny  serial  homology  to  the 
mollusca,  but  it  is  dillicult  to  see  why  the  shell  segments 
of  chiton  are  not  such  homologues  ])ecause  the  segmenta- 
tion is  superficial.  Similarly  the  external  processes  of  eolis, 
doris,  etc.,  are  good  examples  of  serial  homology,  as  also 
are  plainly  the  successive  chambers  of  the  orthoceratid;e. 
Nor  arc  parts  of  a  series  less  serial,  because  arranged  sj)i- 
rally,  as  in  most  gasteropods.  Mr.  Spencer  observes  of  the 
molluscous  as  of  the  vertebrate  animal,  "  You  cannot  cut  it 
into  transverse  slices,  each  of  which  contains  a  digestive  or- 
gan, a  respiratory  organ,  a  reproductive  organ,  etc."  "    But 

"  Prof.  Huxley's  Ilunterian  Lecture,  March  16,  18G8. 

"  Ibid.,  March  18.  '^  "Pnuciples  of  Biology,"  vol.  ii.,  p.  105 


VIII.]  UOMOLOGIES.  185 

the  same  niay  be  said  of  every  single  arthropod  and  annelid 
if  it  be  meant  that  all  these  organs  are  not  contained  in 
every  possible  slice.  While  if  it  be  meant  that  parts  of  all 
such  organs  are  contained  in  certain  slices,  then  some  of  the 
mollusca  may  also  be  included. 

Another  objection  to  Mr.  Spencer's  speculation  is  de- 
rived from  considerations  which  have  already  been  stated, 
as  to  past  time.  For  if  the  annulose  animals  have  been 
formed  by  aggregation,  we  ought  to  find  this  jirocess  much 
less  perfect  in  the  oldest  form.  But  a  comj)lcte  develop- 
ment, such  as  already  ol)tains  in  the  lobster,  etc.,  was 
reached  l)y  ihe  Euryptcrida  and  Trilobites  of  the  j)al;ro7oic 
strata;  and  annelids,  probably  formed  mainly  like  those  of 


TEn-OBITK. 


the  present  day,  abounded  during  the  deposition  of  the 
oldest  fossiliferous  rocks. 

Thirdly,  and  lastly,  as  regards  such  serial  liomology  as 
is  exemplified  by  ihe  backbone  of  man,  there  arc  also  sev- 
eral objections  to  Mr.  Spencer's  mechanical  exj^lanation. 

On  the  theory  of  evolution  most  in  favor,  the  first  Ver- 
tebrata  were  aquatic.  Now,  as  natation  is  generally  effected 
by  repeated  and  vigorous  lateral  flexions  of  the  body,  we 
ought  to  find  the  segmentation  much  more  complete  laterally 
than  on  the  dorsal  and  ventral  aspects  of  the  spinal  column. 


186  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

Nevertheless,  in  those  species  which,  taken  together,  con- 
stitute a  series  of  more  and  more  distinctly  segmented 
forms,  the  segmentation  gradually  increases  all  arou?id  the 
central  part  of  the  spinal  column. 

Mr.  Spencer  '*  thinks  it  probable  that  the  sturgeon  has 
retained  the  notochordal  (that  is,  the  primitive,  imsegment- 
ed)  structure  because  it  is  sluggish.  JJut  Dr.  Gllnther  in- 
forms me  that  the  sluggishness  of  the  connnon  tope  (  Galeics 
vulgaris)  is  much  like  that  of  the  sturgeon,  and  yet  the 
bodies  of  its  vertebrae  are  distinct  and  well  ossified.  More- 
over, the  great  salamander  of  Japan  is  much  more  inert  and 
sluggish  than  either,  and  yet  it  has  a  well-developed,  bony 
spine. 

I  can  learn  nothing  of  the  habits  of  the  sharks  Ilexan- 
ohus,  lleptanchus^  and  Echinorhlnus^  but  Midler  describes 
them  as  possessing  a  persistent  chorda  dorsalis).^*  It  may 
be  tiiey  have  the  habits  of  the  tope,  but  other  sharks  are 
among  the  very  swiftest  and  most  active  of  fishes. 

In  the  bony  pike  (lepidosteus) ,  the  rigidity  of  the  bony 
scales  by  which  it  is  completely  enclosed  must  prevent  any 
excessive  flexion  of  the  body,  and  yet  its  vertebral  column 
presents  a  degree  of  ossification  and  vertebral  completeness 
greater  than  that  found  in  any  other  fish  whatever. 

Mr.  Spencer  supports  his  argument  by  the  non-segmen- 
tation of  the  anterior  end  of  the  skeletal  axis,  i.  e.,  by  the 
non-segmentation  of  the  skull.  But  in  fact  the  skull  is  seg- 
mented, and,  according  to  the  quasi-vertebral  theory  of  the 
skull  put  forward  by  Prof.  Huxley,"  is  probably  formed  of 
a  number  of  coalesced  segments,  of  some  of  which  the  tra- 
beculae  cranii  and  the  mandibular  and  hyoidean  arches  are 
indications.     Wliat  is,  perhaps,  most  remarkable,  however, 

13  ''Principles  of  Biology,"  vol.  ii.,  p.  203. 

'^  Quoted  by  H.  Stannius  in  his  "  Ilandbuch  der  Anatomic  der  Wir- 
belthiere,"  Zweite  Auflagc,  Erstes  Buch,  §  7,  p.  17. 
'^  In  his  last  Iluuterian  Course  of  Lectures,  18G9, 


VIII.j  HOMOLOGIES.  I37 

is,  that  the  segmentation  of  the  skull — its  separation  into 
the  three  occipital,  parietal,  and  frontal  elements — is  most 
complete  and  distinct  in  the  highest  class,  and  this  can  have 
nothing,  however  remotely,  to  do  with  the  cause  suggested 
by  Mr.  Spencer. 

Thus,  then,  there  is  something  to  be  said  in  opposition 
to  both  the  aggregational  and  the  mechanical  explanations 
of  serial  homology.  The  explanations  suggested  are  very 
ingenious,  yet  repose  upon  a  very  small  basis  of  fact.  Not 
but  that  the  process  of  vertebral  segmentation  may  have 
been  sometimes  assisted  by  the  mechanical  action  sug- 
gested. 

It  remains  now  to  consider  what  are  the  evidences  in 
support  of  the  existence  of  an  internal  power,  by  the  action 
of  which  these  homological  manifestations  are  evolved.  It 
is  here  contended  that  there  is  good  evidence  of  the  exist- 
ence of  some  such  special  internal  power,  and  that  not  only 
from  facts  of  comparative  anatomy,  but  also  from  those  of 
teratology  "  and  pathology.  These  facts  appear  to  show, 
not  only  that  there  are  homological  internal  relations,  but 
that  they  are  so  strong  and  energetic  as  to  reassert  and  re- 
exhibit  themselves  in  creatures  which,  on  the  Darwinian 
theory,  are  the  descendants  of  others  in  which  they  were 
much  less  marked.  They  are,  in  fact,  sometimes  even  more 
plain  and  distinct  in  animals  of  the  highest  types  than  in 
inferior  forms;  and,  moreover,  this  deep-seated  tendency 
acts  even  in  diseased  and  abnormal  conditions. 

Mr.  Darwin  recognizes"  these  homological  relations, 
and  does  "  not  doubt  that  they  may  be  mastered  more  or 
less  completely  by  Natural  Selection."  He  does  not,  how- 
ever, give  any  explanation  of  these  phenomena  other  than 
the  imposition  on  them  of  the  name  "  laws  of  correlation ;  " 

^'  "  The  Science  of  Abnormal  Forma." 

^  "Animals  and  Plants  under  Domestication,"  vol.   ii.,  p.  322;  and 
"Origin  of  Species,"  5th  edit.,  I860,  p.  178. 


188 


Till:   GENESIS  OE  Sl'EClES. 


[Chap. 


aiul  iiideccl  he  says,  "  The  nature  of  the  bond  of  coirchition 
is  freciuently  quite  obscure."  Now,  it  is  surely  more  desir- 
able to  make  use,  if  possible,  of  one  conce})tion  than  to  im- 
agine a  number  of,  to  all  a})j)earance,  se})arate  and  inde- 
pendent "  laws  of  correlation  "  between  diilerent  j)arts  of 
each  animal. 

But  even  some  of  these  alleged  laws  hardly  appear  well 
founded.  'J'hus  Mr.  Darwin,  in  supjxjrt  of  such  a  law  of 
concomitant  variation  as  regards  hair  and  teeth,  brings  for- 
ward the  case  of  Julia  Pastrana,'^  and  a  man  of  the  Jiurmese 
court,  and  adds  :  *"  "  These  cases  and  those  of  the  hairless 
dogs  forcibly  call  to  mind  the  fact  that  the  two  orders  of 
mannnals,  namely,  the  Edentata  and  Cetacea,  "which  are 
the  most  abnormal  in  their  dermal   covering,  are  likewise 


TIIK    AAUU-V.VJtK    (oUY<;TKKOI'IIh). 


the  most  abnormal   either  by  deficiency  or   redundacy  of 
teeth."     The  assertion  with  regard  to  these  orders  is  cer- 

>8  A  remarkable  woman  exhibited  in  London  a  few  years  ago. 
13  "Animals  and  Plants  under  Domestication,"  vol.  ii.,  p.  328. 


VIII.] 


HOMOLOGIES. 


189 


tainly  true,  but  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  at  the  same  time 
that  tlie  armadillos,  which  are  much  more  abnormal  than 
are  the  American  ant-eaters  as  regards  their  dermal  cover- 
ing, in  their  dentition  are  less  so.  The  Cape  ant-eater,  on 
the  other  hand,  the  Aard-vark  (Orycteropus),  has  teeth 
formed  on  a  type  quite  different  from  that  existing  in  any 
other  mammal ;  yet  its  hairy  coat  is  not  known  to  cxliibit 


TUE  PANGOLIN    (MANIS). 


any  sucli  strange  peculiarity.  Again,  those  remarkable 
scaly  ant-eaters  of  the  Old  World — the  pangolins  (Manis) 
— stand  alone  among  mammals  as  regards  their  dermal  cov- 
ering; having  been  classed  with  lizards  by  early  naturalists 
on  account  of  their  clothing  of  scales,  yet  their  mouth  is 


like  that  of  the  hairy  ant-eaters  of  the  New  AVorld.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  duck-])illed  platypus  of  Australia  (Orni- 
thorhynchus)  is  the  only  mammal  which  has  teeth  formed  of 


190  THE   GENESIS   OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

horn,  yet  its  furry  coat  is  normal  and  ordinary.  Again,  the 
Dugong  and  Manatee  are  dermally  ahke,  yet  extremely  dif- 
ferent as  regards  the  structure  and  number  of  their  teeth. 
The  porcupine  also,  in  spite  of  its  enormous  armature  of 
quills,  is  furnished  with  as  good  a  supply  of  teeth  as  are 
the  hairy  members  of  the  same  family,  but  not  with  a  bet- 
ter one ;  and  in  spite  of  the  deficiency  of  teeth  in  the  hair- 
less dogs,  no  converse  redundancy  of  teeth  has,  it  is  believed, 
been  remarked  in  Angora  cats  and  rabbits.  To  say  the 
least,  then,  this  law  of  correlation  presents  numerous  and 
remarkable  exceptions. 

To  return,  however,  to  the  subject  of  homological  rela- 
tions: it  is  surely  inconceivable  that  indefinite  variation 
with  survival  of  the  fittest  can  ever  have  built  up  these 
serial,  bilateral,  and  vertical  homologies,  without  the  ac- 
tion of  some  special  innate  power  or  tendency  so  to  build 
up,  possessed  by  the  organism  itself  in  each  case.  By 
"  special  tendency  '*  is  meant  one  the  laws  and  conditions 
of  which  are  as  yet  unknown,  but  which  is  analogous  to  the 
innate  power  and  tendency  possessed  by  crystals  similarly, 
to  build  up  certain  peculiar  and  very  definite  forms. 

First,  with  regard  to  comparative  anatomy.  The  cor- 
respondence between  the  thoracic  and  pelvic  limbs  is  no- 
torious. Prof.  Gegenbaur  has  lately  endeavored  ^°  to 
explain  this  resemblance  by  the  derivation  of  each  limb 
from  a  primitive  form  of  fin.  This  fin  is  supposed  to  have 
had  a  marginal  external  (radial)  series  of  cartilages,  each 
of  which  supported  a  series  of  secondary  cartilages,  starting 
from  the  inner  (ulnar)  side  of  the  distal  part  of  the  support- 
ing marginal  piece.  The  root  marginal  piece  would 
become  the  humerus  or  femur,  as  the  case  might  be  :  the 
second  marginal  piece,  with  the  piece  attached  to  the 
inner  side  of  the  distal  end  of  the  root  marginal  piece,  would 

"  "  Ueber  das  Gliedmaassenskelet  der  Enaliosaurier,  Jenaiscbcn  Zeit- 
schrift,"  Bd.  v.  Ileft  3,  Taf.  xiii. 


VIII.J 


UOiMOLOGIES. 


191 


together  form  cither  the  radius  and  uhia  or  the  tibia  and 
fibula,  and  so  on. 

Now  tliore  is  little  doubt  (from  a  jyriori  considerations) 
but  that  the  special  difFerentiation  of  the  liml>bones  of  the 
higher  Vertebrates  has  been  evolved  from  anterior  condi- 
tions existing  in  some  fish-like  form  or  other.  But  the 
])articular  view  advocated  by  the  learned  professor  is  open 
to  criticism.  Thus,  it  may  be  objected  against  this  view, 
first,  that  it  takes  no  account  of  the  radial  ossicle  which 
becomes  so  enormous  in  the  mole ;  secondly,  that  it  does 
not  explain  the  extra  series  of  ossicles  which  are  formed  on 
the  outer  (radial  or  marginal)  side  of  the  paddle  in  tlie  Ich- 
thyosaurus ;  and  thirdly,  and  most  imporUinth',  that  even  if 
this  had  been  tlie  way  in  which  the  limbs  had  been  dif- 
ferentiated, it  would  not  be  at  all  inconsistent  with  the 
possession  of  an  innate  power  of  producing,  and  an  innate 
tendency  to  produce  similar  and  symmetrical  homological 
resemblances.  It  would  not  be  so  because  resemblances 
of  the  kind  are  found  to  exist,  which,  on  the  Darwinian 
theory,  must  be  subsequent  and  secondary,  not  primitive 
and  ancestral.     Thus  we  find  in  animals  of  the  eft  kind 


SKELETON  OK  AN  ICnTHTOSAURtTS. 


(certain  amphibians),  in  which  the  tarsus  is  cartilaginous, 
that  the  carpus  is  cartilaginous  likewise.  And  we  shall 
see  in  cases  of  disease  and  of  malformation  what  a  ten- 
dency there  is  to  a  similar  affection  of  homologous  parts. 


192 


Till-]   GENESIS   OF  SPECIES. 


[ClIAI' 


In  efts,  as  Prof.  Gegenbaur  liimsclf  lias  pointed  out,"' 
there  is  a  striking-  correspondence  l^ctween  tlie  bones  or 
cartilages  su])porting  the  arm,  wrist,  and  lingers,  and  those 


A,   8KEL£T0N  OF  ANTERIOB  KXTBEMITT  OF  AN  EFT. 
U.   SKELETON  OK  POSTEUIOE  EXTUEMITY  OF  TUE  HAKE. 

sustaining    the   leg,  ankle,  and  toes,  with  the  exception 
that  the  toes  exceed  the  lingers  in  number  by  one. 

Yet  these  animals  are  far  from  beincr  the  root-forms  from 


SKELETON   OF   A   PLFiJIOSAUltrS. 


which  all  the  Vertebrata  have  diverged,  as  is  evidenced  from 
the  degree  of  specialization  which   their  structure  presents. 

"  In  his  work  on  the  Carpus  and  Tarsus. 


Vlir.J  HOMOLOGIES.  I93 

If  tliey  have  descended  from  such  primitive  forms  as 
Prof.  Gegenbaur  imagines,  then  they  have  built  up  a  sec- 
ondary serial  homology — a  repetition  of  similar  modifica- 
tions— fully  as  remarkable  as  if  it  were  primary.  Tlic  PIc- 
siosauria — those  extinct  marine  reptiles  of  tlie  Secondary 
period,  with  long  necks,  small  heads,  and  paddle-like  limbs 
— are  of  yet  higher  organization  than  are  the  efts  and  other 
Amphibia.  Nevertheless  they  present  us  with  a  similarity 
of  structure  between  the  fore  and  hind  linib,  which  is  so 
great  as  almost  to  be  identity.  But  the  Amj^hibia  and 
Plesiosaurin,  though  not  themselves  primitive  vertebrate 
types,  may  be  thought  by  some  to  have  derived  their  limb 
structure  by  direct  descent  from  such.  Tortoises,  how- 
ever, must  be  admitted  to  be  not  only  highly  differentiated 
organisms,  but  to  be  far  indeed  removed  from  primeval 
vertebrate  structure.  Yet  certain  tortoises  "  (notably  Che- 
lydra  Temmmcl'ii)  exhibit  such  a  remarkable  uniform 
ity  in  fore  and  hind  limb  structure  (extending  even  up  tu 
the  proximal  ends  of  the  humerus  and  femur)  that  it  is 
impossible  to  doubt  its  independent  development  in  these 
forms. 

Again,  in  the  Potto  (Perodicticus)  there  is  an  extra 
bone  in  the  foot,  situated  in  the  transverse  ligament  enclos- 
ing the  flexor  tendons.  It  is  noteworthy  that  in  the  ha7id 
of  the  same  animal  a  serially  homologous  structure  should 
also  be  developed."  In  the  allied  form  called  the  slow 
lemur  (Nycticei)us)  we  have  certain  arrangements  of  tlie 
nniscles  and  tendons  of  the  hand  which  reproduce  in  great 
measure  those  of  the  foot,  and  vice  versa.^*  And  in  the 
Hyrax  another  myological  resemblance   appears."     It   is, 

2'  An  excellent  specimen  displaying  this  resemblance  is  preserved  in 
the  Museum  of  the  Royal  College  of  Surgeons. 
"  Phil.  Trans.,  18G7,  p.  353. 
"  Proc.  Zool.  Soc,  18G5,  p.  255. 
«5  Ibid.,  p.  351. 
9 


194 


THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES. 


[ClIAP. 


however,  needless  to  multij)ly  instances  which  can  easily  be 
produced  in  large  numbers  if  required. 


LONG   FLEXOR   M08CLE9   AND  TENDONS   OF  THE   HAND. 

P.t.  Pronator  teres.    F.s.  Flexor  Bublimis  dipltorum.    F.p.    Flexor  profundus 
digitoruiu.    F.l.p.  Flexor  longus  pollicis. 


Secondly,  with  regard  to  teratology,  it  is  notorious  that 
similar  abnormalities  are  often  found  to  coexist  in  both  the 
pelvic  and  thoracic  limbs. 


VIII.]  HOMOLOGIES.  I95 

M.  Isidore  GeofTroy  St-IIilairc  remarks/'  "  L'anomalle 
se  rejKjtc  d'un  membre  thoracique  au  membrc  abdominal 
dii  memc  cot($."  And  lie  afterward  quotes  Weitbrecbt," 
"vvlio  had  "observe  dans  un  cas  I'absence  simultanec  aux 
deux  mains  ct  aux  deux  })ieds,  dc  quehiucs  doip;ts,  de  quel- 
qnes  molaoarj)icns  ct  metatarsicns,  cnfm  dc  quclques  os  du 
carpe  ct  du  tarse." 

Prof.  Burt  G.  Wilder,  in  his  paper  on  extra  dig-its," 
has  recorded  no  less  than  twenty-four  cases  where  such 
excess  coexisted  in  both  little  fingers ;  also  one  case  in 
which  the  right  little  finger  and  little  too  were  so  af- 
fected ;  six  in  which  it  was  both  the  little  fingers  and  both 
the  little  toes  ;  and  twenty-two  other  cases  more  or  less 
the  same,  but  in  which  the  details  were  not  accurately  to 
be  obtained. 

Mr.  Darwin  cites  "  a  remarkable  instance  of  what  he  is 
inclined  to  regard  as  the  development  in  the  foot  of  birds 
of  a  sort  of  representation  of  the  wing-feathers  of  the  hand. 
He  says :  "  In  several  distinct  breeds  of  the  pigeon  and 
fowl  the  logs  and  the  two  outer  toes  arc  heavily  feathered, 
so  that,  in  the  trumpeter  pigeon,  they  appear  like  little 
wings.  In  the  feather-legged  bantam,  the  '  boots,'  or 
feathers,  which  grow  from  the  outside  of  the  leg,  and  gen- 
erally from  the  two  outer  toes,  have,  according  to  the  ex- 
cellent authority  of  Mr.  Hewitt,  been  seen  to  exceed  the 
wing-feathers  in  length,  and  in  one  case  were  actually 
■gine  and  a  half  inches  in  length  I  As  Mr.  Blyth  has  re- 
marked to  me,  these  leg-feathers  resemble  the  primary  wing- 
feathers,  and  are  totally  unlike  the  fine  down  which  naturally 
grows  on  the  legs  of  some  birds,  such   as  grouse   and  owls. 

''^  "  Hist.  Gc'ii^rale  dcs  Anomalies,"  t.  i.,  p.  228.     Bruxcllcs,  1837. 
"  Nov.  Comment,  retrop.  t.  i.x.,  p.  269. 

58  Read  on  June  2,  1868,  before  the  Massachusetts  Medical  Socictj. 
Sec  vol.  ii.,  No.  3. 

'9  "  Animals  and  Dants  under  Domestication,"  vol.  ii.,  p.  822. 


19G  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

Hence  it  may  be  suspected  that  excess  of  food  has  first 
given  redundancy  to  the  phnnage,  and  then  that  the  hiw 
of  lioniologous  variation  lias  led  to  the  development  of 
feathers  on  the  legs,  in  a  position  corresponding  with  those 
on  the  wing,  namely,  on  the  outside  of  the  tarsi  and  toes. 
I  am  strengtiiened  in  this  belief  by  the  following  curious 
case  of  correlation,  which  for  a  long  time  seemed  to  me 
utterly  inexplicable — namely,  that  in  pigeons  of  any  breed, 
if  the  legs  are  feathered,  the  two  outer  toes  are  partially 
connected  l^y  skin.  These  two  outer  toes  correspond  with 
our  third  and  fourth  toes.  Now,  in  the  wing  of  the  pigeon, 
or  any  other  bird,  the  first  and  fifth  digits  are  wholly  abort- 
ed ;  the  second  is  rudimentary,  and  carries  the  so-called 
*  bastard  wing ; '  while  the  third  and  fourth  digits  are 
completely  united  and  enclosed  by  skin,  together  furming 
the  extremity  of  the  wing.  So  that  in  feather -footed 
])igeons  not  only  does  the  exterior  surface  support  a  row 
of  long  feathers  like  wing-feathei"S,  but  the  very  same 
digits  which  in  the  wing  are  completely  united  by  skin  be- 
come j)artially  united  by  skin  in  the  feet;  and  thus,  by  the 
law  of  the  correlated  variation  of  homologous  })arts,  we 
can  understand  the  curious  connection  of  feathered  legs 
and  membrane  between  the  outer  toes." 

Irregularities  in  the  circulating  system  are  far  from  un- 
common, and  sometimes  illustrate  this  homological  ten- 
dency. My  friend  and  colleague  Mr.  George  G.  Gascoyen, 
assistant  surgeon  at  St.  Mary's  Hospital,  has  sujiplied  me 
with  two  instances  of  synnnetrical  affections  whicb  have 
come  under  his  observation. 

In  the  first  of  these  the  brachial  artery  bifurcated  al- 
most at  its  origin,  the  two  halves  reuniting  at  the  elbow- 
joint,  and  then  dividing  into  the  radial  and  ulnar  arteries 
in  the  usual  manner.  In  the  second  case  an  aberrant  ar- 
tery was  given  olf  from  the  radial  side  of  the  brachial 
artery,  again   almost  at  its    origin.     This   aberrant  artery 


VIII.]  HOMOLOGIES.  I97 

anastomosed  below  the  elbow-joint  with  the  radial  side 
of  the  radial  artery.  In  each  of  these  cases  the  right  and 
left  sides  varied  in  precisely  the  same  manner. 

Thirdly,  as  to  pathology.  Mr.  James  Paget,"  speaking 
of  symmetrical  diseases,  says  :  "  A  certain  morbid  change 
of  structure  on  one  side  of  the  body  is  repeated  in  the 
exactly  corresponding  part  of  tlie  other  side."  He  then 
quotes  and  figures  a  diseased  lion's  pelvis  from  the  College 
of  Surgeons  Museum,  and  says  of  it:  "JMultiform  as  the 
pattern  is  in  which  the  new  bone,  the  product  of  some  dis- 
ease comparable  with  a  human  rheumatism,  is  deposited — 
a  pattern  more  complex  and  irregular  than  the  spots  upon 
a  map — there  is  not  one  spot  or  line  on  one  side  whicli  is 
not  represented,  as  exactly  as  it  would  be  in  a  mirror,  on 
the  other.  The  likeness  has  more  than  daguerreotype  ex- 
actness." He  goes  on  to  observe  :  "  I  need  not  describe 
many  examples  of  such  diseases.  Any  out-patients'  room 
will  furnish  abundant  instances  of  exact  symmetry  in  the 
eruptions  of  eczema,  lepra,  and  psoriasis  ;  in  the  deformi- 
ties of  chronic  rheumatism,  the  paralysis  from  load  ;  in  the 
eruplions  excited  by  iodide  of  polassium  or  copaiba.  And 
any  large  museum  will  contain  examples  of  e(|ual  synunc- 
try  in  syphilitic  ulcerations  of  the  skull  ;  in  rheumatic  and 
syphilitic  deposits  on  the  tibire  and  other  bones;  in  all  the 
cfTects  of  chronic  rheumatic  arthritis,  whether  in  the  bones, 
the  ligaments,  or  the  cartilages ;  in  the  fatty  and  earthy  de- 
posits in  the  coats  of  arteries."  " 

He  also  considered  it  to  be  proved  that,  "  next  to  the 
parts  which  are  symmetrically  placed,  none  are  so  nearly 
identical  in  composition  as  those  which  are  homologous. 
For  example,  the  backs  of  the  hands  and  of  the  feet,  or  the 
palms  and  soles,  are  often  not  only  symmetrically,  but  simi- 
larly, afTected  with  psoriasis.     So  are  the  elbows  and   the 

8"  "Lectures  on  Surgical  Pathologj,"  1853,  vol  i.,  p.  18. 
3'  Ibid.,  p.  22. 


198  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

knees  ;  and  similar  portions  of  the  thighs  and  tlie  arms  may- 
be found  aflected  with  icthyosis.  Sometimes  also  specimens 
of  fatty  and  earthy  deposits  in  the  arteries  occur,  in  which 
exact  similarity  is  shown  in  tlie  plan,  though  not  in  the  de- 
gree, with  which  the  disease  alTects  severally  the  humeral 
and  femoral,  the  radial  and  peroneal,  the  ulnar  and  pos- 
terior tibial  arteries.'* 

Dr.  William  Budd  "  gives  numerous  instances  of  sym- 
metry in  disease,  both  lateral  and  serial.  Thus,  among 
others,  we  have  one  case  (William  Godfrey),  in  which  the 
hands  and  feet  were  distorted.  **The  distortion  of  the 
right  hand  is  greater  than  that  of  the  left,  of  the  right  foot 
greater  than  that  of  the  left  foot."  In  another  (Elizabeth 
Alford)  lej)ra  affected  the  extensor  surfaces  of  the  thoracic 
and  pelvic  limbs.  Again,  in  the  case  of  skin-disease  illus- 
trated in  Plate  III.,  "'llie  analogy  between  the  elbows  and 
knees  is  clearly  expressed  in  the  fact  that  these  were  the 
only  parts  affected  with  the  disease."  " 

Prof.  Burt  Wilder,"  in  his  ])aper  on  "  Pathological  Po- 
larities," strongly  supports  tlie  philosophical  importance 
of  these  peculiar  relations,  adding  arguments  in  favor  of 
antero-posterior  homologies,  which  it  is  here  unnecessary 
to  discuss,  enough  having  been  said,  it  is  believed,  to  thor- 
oughly demonstrate  the  existence  of  these  deep  internal 
relations  which  are  named  lateral  and  serial  homologies. 

What  explanation  can  be  offered  of  these  phenomena  ? 
To  say  that  they  exhibit  a  "  nutritional  relation  "  brought 
about  by  a  "  balancing  of  forces"  is  merely  to  give  a  new 
denomination  to  the  iniexplained  fact.  The  changes  are, 
c>/*co?</'5t',  brought  about  by  a  "nutritional"  i)roc(,'ss,  juid 

2*  See  •'  Mcdico-Chirurgical  Transactions,"  vol.  xxv.  (or  vii.  of  2d 
series),  1842,  p.  100,  PI.  111. 

33  Med.-Chirurg.  Trans,  vol.  xxv.  (or  vii.  of  2d  scries),  1812,  p.  122. 

3-*  See  Boston  Medical  and  Sur(/ical  Jonrnat  for  April  5,  18GG,  vol. 
Ixxiv.,  p.  189. 


VIII.]  HOMOLOGIES.  199 

tlie  symmetry  ia  undoubtedly  the  result  of  a  "balance, 
of  forces,"  but  to  say  so  is  a  truism.  The  question  is,  What 
is  the  cause  of  this  "nutritional  balancing?"  It  is  here 
contended  that  it  must  be  due  to  an  internal  cause  \vhich 
at  present  science  is  utterly  incompetent  to  explain.  It  is 
an  internal  property  possessed  by  each  living  organic  whole 
as  well  as  by  each  non-living  crystalline  mass,  and  that  there 
is  such  internal  power  or  tendency,  which  may  be  spoken  of 
as  a  "  polarity,"  seems  to  be  demonstrated  by  the  instances 
above  given,  which  can  easily  be  multiplied  indefinitely. 
^Ir.  Herbert  Spencer '*  (speaking  of  the  reproduction,  by 
budding,  of  a  Begonia-leaf)  recognizes  a  power  of  the  kind. 
He  says,  "  We  have,  therefore,  no  alternative  but  to  say 
that  the  living  particles  composing  one  of  these  fragments 
have  an  imiate  tendency  to  arrange  themselves  into  the 
shape  of  the  organism  to  which  they  belong.  We  must  in- 
fer that  a  plant  or  animal  of  any  species  is  made  up  of 
special  units,  in  all  of  which  there  dwells  the  intrinsic  apti- 
tude to  aggregate  into  the  form  of  that  species ;  just  as,  in 
the  atoms  of  a  salt,  there  dwells  the  intrinsic  aptitude  to 
crystallize  in  a  particular  way.  It  seems  difficult  to  conceive 
that  this  can  be  so ;  but  we  see  that  it  is  so."  ....  "  For 
this  property  there  is  no  fit  term.  If  we  accept  the  word 
polarity  as  a  name  for  the  force  by  which  inorganic  units  are 
aggregated  into  a  form  peculiar  to  them,  we  may  apply  this 
Avord  to  the  analogous  force  displayed  by  organic  limits." 

Dr.  Jeffries  Wyman,"  in  his  paper  on  the  "  Symmetry 
and  Homology  of  Limbs,"  has  a  distinct  chapter  on  the 
"  Analogy  between  Symmetry  and  Polarity,"  illustrating  it 
by  the  effects  of  magnets  on  "  particles  in  a  polar  con- 
dition." 

35  "Principlos  of  Biology,"  vol.  i.,  p.  180. 

3«  Sec  the  "  rrocccdings  of  the  Boston  Society  of  Natural  History," 
vol.  xi.,  June  5,  1867. 


200  THE   GENESIS   OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

Mv.  J.  J.  Murpliy,  after  noticing  "  the  power  wliicli  crys- 
tals liave  to  repair  injuries  inflicted  on  tlieni  and  the  modifi- 
cations tliey  undergo  through  the  influence  of  the  medium 
in  wliich  tliey  may  be  formed,  goes  on  to  say  :  "  *'  It  needs  no 
proof  that  in  tlie  case  of  splieres  and  crystals  the  forms  and 
the  structures  are  the  effect,  and  not  the  cause,  of  the  form- 
ative principles.  Attraction,  whether  gravitative  or  cap- 
illary, ])roduces  the  spherical  form  ;  the  spiuirical  form  docs 
not  produce  attraction.  And  crystalline  polarities  produce 
crystalline  structure  and  form ;  crystalline  structure  and 
form  do  not  produce  crystalline  polarities.  The  same  is  not 
quite  so  evident  of  organic  forms,  but  it  is  equally  true  of 
them  also."  ....  *'  It  is  not  conceivable  that  the  micro- 
scope should  reveal  peculiarities  of  structure  corresponding 
to  peculiarities  of  habitual  tendency  in  the  embryo,  which  at 
its  first  formation  has  no  structure  whatever  ;"^*  and  he  adds 
that  "  there  is  something  quite  inscrutable  and  mysterious  " 
in  the  formation  of  a  new  individual  from  the  germinal  mat- 
ter of  the  emi)ryo.  In  another  place  "  he  says  :  "  A\''e  know 
that  in  crystals,  notwithstanding  the  variability  of  form 
within  the  limits  of  the  same  species,  there  are  deliuitc;  and 
very  peculiar  formative  laws,  which  (jaiinot  })ossibly  depend 
on  any  thing  like  organic  functions,  because  crystals  have 
no  such  functions  ;  and  it  ought  not  to  surprise  us  if  there 
are  similar  formative  or  morphological  laws  among  organ- 
isms which,  like  the  formative  laws  of  crystallization,  can- 
not be  referred  to  any  relation  of  form  or  structure  to  func- 
tion. Especially,  I  think  is  this  true  of  the  lowest  organ- 
isms, many  of  which  show  great  beauty  of  form,  of  a  kind  that 
aj^peais  to  be  altogether  due  to  synnnetry  of  growth ;  as 
the  beautiful  star-like  rayed  forms  of  the  acanthouielnv,^ 
which  are  low  animal  organisms  not  very  dilTcrent  from  the 
Foraminifera."     'Pheir  "  definiteness  of  form  does  not  appear 

3'  "ITabit  and  Intelligence,"  vol.  i.,  p.  75.  ^^  Ibid.,  p.  112. 

3»  Ibid.,  p.  170.  .  40  ibid.^  vol.  i.,  p.  229. 


VJIT.J  HOMOLOGIES.  201 

to  be  accompanied  ])y  any  correspondlnfr  difTerentlation  of 
function  between  difTcrcnt  parts;  and,  so  far  as  I  can  sec, 
the  beautiful  regularitj^  and  symmetry  of  tlicir  radiated 
forms  are  altogether  due  to  unknown  laws  of  symmetry  of 
growth,  just  like  the  equally'  beautiful  and  somewhat  similar 
forms  of  the  compound  six-rayed,  star-shaped  crystals  of 
snow." 

Altogether,  then,  it  appears  that  each  organism  has  an 
innate  tendency  to  develop  in  a  symmetrical  maimer,  and 
that  this  tendency  is  controlled  and  subordinated  by  the 
action  of  external  conditions,  and  not  tliat  this  symmetry  is 
superinduced  only  ab  externa.  In  fact,  that  each  organism 
hns  its  own  internal  and  special  laws  of  growth  and  devel- 
opment. 

If,  then,  it  is  still  necessary  to  conceive  an  internal  law 
or  "substantial  form,"  moulding  each  organic  being,*'  and 
directing  its  development  as  a  crystal  is  built  up,  onl}'  in 
an  indefinitely  more  complex  manner,  it  is  congruous  to  im- 
aerine  the  existence  of  some  internal  law  accountinef  at  the 
same  time  for  specific  divergence  as  well  as  for  specific 
identit3\ 

A  principle  regulating  the  successive  evolution  of  differ- 
ent organic  forms  is  not  one  whit  more  mysterious  than  is 
the  mysterious  power  by  which  a  particle  of  structureless 
sarcode  develops  successively  into  an  q^q,  a  grub,  a  chrysalis, 
a  butterfly,  when  all  the  conditions,  cosmical,  physical, 
chemical,  and  vital,  are  supplied,  which  are  the  requisite 
accompaniments  to  determine  such  evolution. 

^^  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  say  that  the  author  idocs  not  mean  that 
there  is,  in  addition  to  a  real  objective  crystal,  another  real,  objective 
separate  tliinfi;  beside  it, --namely  the  "  force"  directing  it,  All  that  is 
meant  is  that  the  action  of  the  crystal  in  crystallizing  must  be  ideally 
separated  from  the  crystal  itself,  not  that  It  is  really  separate. 


202  THE   GENESIS   OF   SPECIES.  [Cn^. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

EVOLUTION    AND    ETHICS. 

The  Origin  of  Morals  an  Inquiry  not  forcii^n  to  the  Subject  of  this  Book.— Modern 
Utilitarian  View  as  to  tliat  Origin. — Mr.  Darwin's  Speculation  as  to  the  Origin 
of  the  AbhoiTonce  of  Incest. — Cause  assigned  by  liini  insutlicient. — Care  of  the 
Aged  and  Infum  opposed  by  "  Natural  Selection ; "  also  Self-abnegation  and 
Asceticism. — Distinctness  of  the  Ideas  "  lUght"  and  "Useful." — Mr.  John  Stuart 
ilill. — Insulliciency  of  "Natural  Selection"  to  account  for  the  Origin  of  tho 
Distinction  between  Duty  and  Proflt. — Distinction  of  Moral  AcUj  Into  "  Mate- 
rial" and  "  Formal." — No  Ground  for  believing  that  Formal  Morality  exists  in 
Brutes. — Evidence  that  it  does  exist  in  Savages. — Facility  with  which  Savages 
may  be  misunderstood. — Objections  as  to  Diversity  of  Customs. — Mr.  Ilutton's 
licview  of  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer. — Anticipatory  Character  of  Morals. — Sir  John 
Lubbock's  E.tplanation. — Summary  and  Conclusion. 

Any  inquiry  into  tlie  orif^-in  of  the  notion  of  "  morality  " 
— tho  conception  of  "  right " — niiiy,  peihai)s,  be  consiilered 
as  somewhat  remote  from  the  question  of  the  Genesis  of 
Species;  tlie  more  so,  since  Mr.  Darwin,  at  one  time,  dis- 
chiimed  any  pretension  to  exphiin  the  origin  of  the  higher 
psychical  phenomena  of  man.  His  disciples,  however,  were 
never  equally  reticent,  and  indeed  he  himself  is  now  not 
only  about  to  produce  a  work  on  man  (in  which  this  question 
must  be  considered),  but  he  has  distinctly  announced  the 
extension  of  the  application  of  his  theory  to  the  very  j)he- 
nomena  in  question.  He  sa3's :  *  "  In  the  distant  future  I 
see  open  fields  for  far  more  important  researches.  Psy- 
cliology  will  be  based  on  a  new  foundation,  that  of  the 
necessary  acquirement  of  each  mental  power  and  capacity 
by  gradation.     Light  will  be  thrown  on  the  orig-in  of  man 

'  "Origiu  of  Species,"  6th  edit.,  18G9,  p.  577. 


IX.J  EVOLUTION   AND  KTIIICS.  203 

and  liis  liistory."  It  may  not  be  amiss  then  to  glance 
sliglitly  at  the  question,  so  much  disputed,  concerning  the 
origin  of  ethical  conceptions  and  its  bearing  on  the  theory 
of  "  Natural  Selection." 

The  followers  of  Mr.  John  Stuart  Mill,  of  Mr.  Herbert 
Spencer,  and  {ipparentl}^  also,  of  Mr.  Darwin,  assert  that 
in  spite  of  the  great  ^;rcse;i^  difference  between  the  ideas 
"useful  "  and  "right,"  yet  that  they  are,  nevertheless,  one 
in  origin^  and  that  that  origin  consisted  ultimately  of  pleas- 
urable and  painful  sensations. 

They  say  that  "  Natural  Selection  "  has  evolved  moral 
conceptions  from  perceptions  of  wliat  was  useful,  i  e.,  pleas- 
urable, by  having  through  long  ages  preserved  a  j)redomi- 
natinjr  number  of  those  individuals  who  have  had  a  natural 
and  spontaneous  liking  for  practices  and  habits  of  mind 
useful  to  the  race,  and  that  the  same  power  has  destroj'ed 
a  predominating  number  of  those  individuals  who  possessed 
a  marked  tendency  to  contrary  practices.  The  descend- 
ants of  individuals  so  preserved  have,  they  sa}-,  come  to 
inherit  such  a  liking  and  such  useful  habits  of  mind,  and 
that  at  last  (finding  this  inherited  tendency  thus  existing 
in  themselves,  distinct  from  their  tendency  to  conscious  self- 
gratification)  the}'  have  become  apt  to  regard  it  as  funda- 
mentally distinct,  innate^  and  independent  of  all  experience. 
In  fact,  according  to  this  school,  the  idea  of  "right"  is 
only  the  result  of  the  gradual  accretion  of  useful  predilec- 
tions which,  from  time  to  time,  arose  in  a  series  of  ances- 
tors naturally  selected.  In  this  way,  "  morality "  is,  as  it 
were,  the  congealed  past  experience  of  the  race,  and 
"  virtue "  becomes  no  more  than  a  sort  of  "retrieving," 
which  the  thus  improved  human  animal  practises  by  a  per- 
fected and  inherited  habit,  regardless  of  self-gratification, 
just  as  the  brute  animal  has  acquired  the  habit  of  seeking 
prey  and  bringing  it  to  his  master,  instead  of  devouring  it 
himself. 


204  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

Tliougli  Mr.  Darwin  lias  not  as  yet  expressly  advocated 
this  view,  yet  some  remarks  made  by  him  a}>|iear  to  show 
his  disposition  to  sympathize  with  it.  Thus  in  his  M'ork 
on  "  Animals  and  Plants  under  Domestication,"  ^  he  asserts 
that  "  the  savages  of  Australia  and  South  America  hold  the 
crime  of  incest  in  abhorrence ;  "  but  he  considers  that  this 
abhorrence  has  probably  arisen  by  "Natural  Selection," 
tiie  ill  eft'ects  of  close  interbreeding  causing  the  less  numer- 
ous, and  less  healthy  ollspring  of  incestuous  unions  to  dis- 
appear by  degrees,  in  favor  of  the  descendants  (greater 
both  in  number  and  strength)  or  individuals  who  naturally, 
from  some  cause  or  other,  as  he  suggests,  preferred  to  mate 
with  strangers  rather  than  with  close  blood-relations;  this 
preference  being  transmitted  and  becoming  thus  instinc- 
tive, or  habitual,  in  remote  descendants. 

But  on  Mr.  Darwin's  own  ground,  it  may  be  objected 
that  this  notion  fails  to  account  for  "  abhorrence  "  and 
"moral  reprobation  ;"  for,  as  no  stream  can  rise  higher 
than  its  source,  the  original  "  slight  feeling "  which  was 
iiseful  would  have  been  perpetuated,  but  would  never  have 
been  augmented  beyond  the  degree  requisite  to  insure  this 
beneficial  preference,  and  therefore  would  not  certainly 
have  become  magnified  into  "  abhorrence."  It  will  not  do 
to  assume  that  the  union  of  males  and  females,  each  pos- 
sessing the  required  "  slight  feeling,"  must  give  rise  to  off- 
spring with  an  intensified  feeling  of  the  same  kind ;  for, 
apart  from  reversion,  Mr.  Darwin  has  called  attention  to 
tlie  unexpected  modifications  which  sometimes  result  from 
the  union  of  sunllarb/  constituted  parents.  Thus,  for  ex- 
ample, he  tells  us :  '  "If  two  tojvknotted  canaries  are 
matched,  the  young,  instead  of  having  very  fine  loj)-knots, 
are  generally  bald."  From  examples  of  this  kind,  it  is  fair, 
on  Darwinian  i)rinciples,  to  infer  that  the  imion  of  j)arents 

«  Vol.  ii.,  p.  122. 

^  "Animals  and  Plants  under  Domestication,"  vol.  i,  p.  296. 


IX.]  EVOLUTION   AND   ETHICS.  205 

who  possessed  a  similar  inherited  aversion  might  result  in 
plienomcna  quite  other  than  the  augmentation  of  such 
aversion,  even  if  the  two  aversions  should  be  altogether 
similar  ;  while,  very  probably,  they  might  be  so  different  in 
their  nature  as  to  tend  to  neutralize  each  other.  Besides, 
the  union  of  parents  so  similarly  emotional,  would  be  rare 
indeed  among  savages,  where  marriages  would  be  owing  to 
almost  any  thing  ratlier  tlian  to  congeniality  of  mind  be- 
tween the  spouses.  Mr.  Wallace  tells  us,*  that  they  choose 
their  Avives  for  "rude  health  and  pliysical  beauty,"  and 
this  is  just  what  might  be  naturally  supposed.  Again,  wo 
must  bear  in  mind  the  necessity  there  is  that  inaiiy  mdi- 
vifhmls  should  be  similarly  and  simultaneously  affected 
with  this  aversion  from  consanguineous  unions;  as  we 
have  seen  in  the  second  chapter,  how  infallibly  variations 
presented  by  only  a  few  individuals,  tend  to  be  eliminated 
by  mere  force  of  numbers.  Mr.  Darwin  indeed  would 
throw  back  this  aversion,  if  possible,  to  a  pre-human  period; 
since  he  speculates  as  to  whether  the  gorillas  or  orang- 
utans, in  effectitig  their  matrimonial  relations,  show  any 
tendency  to  respect  the  prohibited  degrees  of  affinity.* 
No  tittle  of  evidence,  however,  has  yet  been  adduced  point- 
ing in  any  such  direction,  though  surely  if  it  were  of  such 
importance  and  efficiency  as  to  result  (through  tlie  aid  of 
"  Natural  Selection  "  alone)  in  that  "  abhorrence  "  before 
spoken  of,  we  might  expect  to  be  able  to  detect  unmistak- 
able evidence  of  its  incipient  stages.  On  the  contrary,  as 
regards  the  ordinary  apes  (for  with  regard  to  the  highest 
there  is  no  evidence  of  the?  kind)  as  we  see  them  in  con- 
finement, it  would  be  difficult  to  name  any  animals  less  re- 
stricted, by  even  a  generic  bar,  in  the  gratification  of  the 
sexual  instinct.  And  although  the  conditions  under  which 
they    have    l)een    observed  are   abnormal,   yet   these     arc 

*■  "  Natural  SclcoHon,"  p.  HaO. 

6  "  Animals  and  Plants  under  Domestication,"  vol.  iL 


20G  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

hardly  the  animals  to  present  us  in  a  state  of  nature,  with 
an  extraordinary  and  exceptional  sensitiveness  in  such 
matters. 

To  take  an  altogether  different  case.     Care  of,  and  ten- 
derness toward,  the  aged  and  infirm  are  actions  on  all  hands 
admitted  to  be  "right; "  but  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  such 
actions  could  ever  have  been  so  useful  to  a  connnunity  as 
to  have  been  seized  on  and  developed  by  the  exclusive  ac- 
tion of  the  law  of  the   "survival  of  the   fittest."     On  the 
contrary,  it  seems  probable  that  on  strict  utilitarian  princi- 
ples the  rigid  political  economy  of  Tierra  del  Fuego  would 
have  been  eminently  favored  and  diffused  by  the  impartial 
action  of  "Natural  Selection"  alone.     B}'^  the  rigid  politi- 
cal economy  referred  to,  is  meant  that  destruction  and  utili- 
zation of  "useless  mouths"  which  Mr.  Darwin  himself  de- 
scribes in  his  highly  interesting  "  Journal  of  Researches."  " 
He  says:  "It  is  certainly  true,  that  Avhen  pressed  in  win- 
ter by  hunger,  they  kill  and  devour  their  old  women  before 
they   kill    their   dogs.     The    boy    being   asked    why    they 
did  this,  answered  :  *  Doggies  catch  otters,  old  woman  no.' 
They  often  run  awny  into  the  mountains,  but  they  are  pur- 
sued by  the  men  and  brought  back  to  the  slaughter-house 
at   their  own   firesides."     JNIr.   Edward   Bartlett,   who   has 
recently  returned  from  the  Amazons,  reports  that  at  one 
Indian  village  where  the  cholera  made  its  appearance,  the 
whole  population  immediately  dispersed  into   the  woods, 
leaving  the  sick  to  perish  uncared  for  and  alone.    Now,  had 
the  Indians  remained,  undoubtedly  far  more  would  have 
died;  as  doubtless,  in  Tierra  del  Fuego,  the  d(!struclion  of 
the  comparatively  useless  old  women  has  often  been  the 
means  of  preserving  the  healthy  and  reproductive  young. 
Such  acts  surely  must  be  greatly  favored  by  the  stc^rn  and 
unrelenting  action  of  exclusive  "  Natural  Selection." 

In  the  same  way  that  admiration  which  all  feel  for  acts 

«  See  2d  edit.,  vol.  i.,  p.  214. 


IX.]  EVOLUTION   AND   ETHICS.  207 

of  self-denial  done  for  the  good  of  otliers,  and  tending  even 
toward   the  destruction  of  the  actor,  could  hardly  be  ac- 
counted for  on  Darwinian  principles  alone ;  for  sclf-innno- 
lators  must  but   rarclj  leave  direct  descendants,  while  the 
comnuinity  they  benefit  must  by  their  destruction  tend,  so 
far,  to   morally  deteriorate.     But  devotion  to  others  of  the 
same  conununity  is  by  no  means  all  that  has  to  be  account- 
ed for.     Devotion  to  the  whole  human  race,  and  devotion 
to  God — in  the  form  of  asceticism — have  been  and  are  very 
generally  recognized  as  "good;"  and  the  author  contends 
that  it  is  simply  imjiossible  to  conceive  that  such  ideas  and 
sanctions  should  have  been  developed  by  "  Natural  Selec- 
tion "  alone,  from  only  that  degree  of  unselfishness  neces- 
sary for  the  preservation  of  brutally  barbarous  communities 
in  the  struggle  for  life.     That  degree  of  unselfishness  once 
attained,  further   improvement  would    be    checked  by  the 
mutual  opposition  of  diverging  moral  tendencies  and  spon- 
taneous variations  in  all  directions.     Added  to  which,  we 
have  the  principle  of  reversion  and  atavism,  tending  power- 
fully to  restore  and  reproduce  the  more  degraded  anterior 
condition    whence    the   later   and    better    state    painfully 
emerged. 

Very  f(nv,  however,  dispute  the  complete  distinctness, 
here  and  now,  of  the  ideas  of  "duty"  and  "interest,"  what- 
ever may  have  been  the  origin  of  those  ideas.  No  one  pre- 
tends that  ingratitude  may,  in  any  past  abyss  of  time,  have 
been  a  virtue,  or  that  it  may  be  such  now  in  Arcturus  or 
the  Pleiades.  Indeed,  a  certain  eminent  writer  of  the  utili- 
tarian school  of  ethics  has  amusingly  and  \ery  instructively 
shown  how  radically  distinct  even  in  his  own  mind  are  the 
two  ideas  which  he  nevertheless  endeavors  to  identify.  Mr. 
John  Stuart  Mill,  in  his  examination  of  "  Sir  William  Ham- 
ilton's Philosophy,"  says:'  if  "I  am  informed  that  the 
world  h  ruled  by  a  Being  whose  attributes  are  infinite,  but 

"»  rage  103. 


208  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

what  they  are  we  cannot  learn,  nor  what  the  principles  of 
his  government,  except  that  '  the  higlicst  human  morality 
which  we  are  capable  of  conceiving'  does  not  sanction  them; 
convince  me  of  it,  and  I  will  bear  my  fate  as  I  may.  But 
when  I  am  told  that  I  must  believe  this,  and  at  the  same 
time  call  this  being  by  the  names  which  express  and  allirm 
the  highest  human  morality,  I  say  in  plain  terms  tliat  I  will 
not  Whatever  power  such  a  being  may  have  over  me, 
there  is  one  thing  which  he  shall  not  do;  he  shall  not  com- 
pel me  to  worship  him.  I  will  call  no  being  good,  who  is 
not  what  I  mean  when  I  apply  that  epithet  to  my  fellow- 
creatures  ;  and  if  such  a  being  can  sentence  me  to  hell  for 
not  so  calling  him,  to  hell  I  Avill  go." 

This  is  unquestionably  an  admirable  sentiment  on  the 
part  of  Mr.  Mill  (with  which  every  absolute  moralist  will 
agree),  but  it  contains  a  complete  refutation  of  his  own  po- 
sition, and  is  a  capital  instance  '  of  the  vigorous  life  of 
moral  intuition  in  one  who  professes  to  have  eliminated  any 
fundamental  distinction  between  the  "  right "  and  the  "  ex- 
pedient." For  if  an  action  is  morally  good,  and  to  be  done, 
merely  in  proportion  to  the  amount  of  pleasure  it  secures, 
and  morally  bad  and  to  be  av^oided  as  tending  to  misery, 
and  if  it  could  be  jyroved  that  by  calling  God  good— 
whether  He  is  so  or  not,  in  our  sense  of  the  term — we  could 
secure  a  maximum  of  pleasure,  and  by, refusing  to  do  so  we 
should  incur  endless  torment,  clearly,  on  utilitarian  princi- 
ples, the  flattery  would  be  good. 

Mr.  Mill,  of  course,  must  also  mean  that,  in  the  matter 
in  question,  all  men  would  do  well  to  act  with  him.  There- 
fore, he  must  mean  that  it  would  be  well  for  all  to  accc[)t 
(on  the  hypothesis  above  given)  infuiite  and  llnal  misery 
for  all  as  the  result  of  the  pursuit  of  happiness  as  the  only 
end. 

8  I  have  not  the  merit  of  having  noticed  this  inconsistency;  it  was 
pointed  out  to  mc  by  my  friend  the  Rev.  W,  W.  Roberts. 


IX.]  EVOLUTION  AND  ETUICS.  209 

It  must  be  recollected  that  in  consenting  to  worship 
this  nnholy  God,  Mr.  Mill  is  not  asked  to  do  harm  to  his 
neighbor,  so  that  his  refusal  reposes  simply  on  his  percep- 
tion of  the  immorality  of  the  requisition.  It  is  also  note- 
worthy that  an  omnipotent  Deity  is  supposed  incapable  of 
altering  Mr.  Mill's  mind  and  moral  perceptions. 

Mr.  Mill's  decision  is  right,  but  it  is  didicult  indeed  to 
see  how,  without  the  recognition  of  an  "absolute  morality," 
he  can  justify  so  utter  and  final  an  abandonment  of  all  util- 
ity in  favor  of  a  clear  and  distinct  moral  perception. 

These  two  ideas,  the  "  right  "  and  the  "  useful,"  being 
so  distinct  here  and  now,  a  greater  dilfioulty  meets  us  with 
regard  to  their  origin  from  some  common  source,  than  met 
lis  before  when  considering  the  first  begiimings  of  certain 
bodily  structures.  For  the  distinction  between  the  "  right " 
and  the  "useful"  is  so  fundamental  and  essential  that  not 
only  does  the  idea  of  benefit  not  enter  into  the  idea  of  duty, 
but  we  see  that  the  very  fact  of  an  act  not  being  beneficial 
to  us  makes  it  the  more  praiseworthy,  while  gain  tends  to 
diminish  the  merit  of  an  action.  Yet  this  idea,  "right," 
thus  excluding,  as  it  does,  all  reference  to  utility  or  pleas- 
ure, has  nevertheless  to  be  constructed  and  evolved  from 
utility  and  pleasure,  and  ultimately  from  jileasurable  sensa- 
tions, if  we  are  to  accept  pure  Darwinianism  :  if  we  are  to 
accept,  that  is,  the  evolution  of  man's  psychical  nature  and 
highest  powers  by  the  exclusive  action  of  "  Natural  Selec- 
tion," from  such  faculties  as  are  possessed  by  brutes  ;  in  other 
words,  if  we  are  to  believe  that  the  conceptions  of  the  high- 
est human  morality  arose  through  minute  and  fortuitous 
variations  of  brutal  desires  and  appetites  in  all  conceivable 
directions. 

It  is  here  contended,  on  the  other  hand,  that  no  conser- 
vation of  any  such  variations  could  ever  have  given  rise  to 
the  faintest  beginning  of  any  such  moral  percc^ptions;  that 
by  "  Natural  Selection  "  alone  the  m:ix\m  fat  just  itia,  ruat 


210  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

ccelwn  could  never  have  been  excogitated,  still  less  have 
liave  found  a  wide-spread  acceptance;  that  it  is  impotent 
to  suggest  even  an  approach  toward  an  explanation  of  the 
Jirst  beginning  of  the  idea  of  "  right."  It  need  hardly  be 
remarked  that  acts  may  be  distinguished  not  only  as 
pleasurable,  useful,  or  beautiful,  but  also  as  good  in  two 
dilVerent  senses :  (1)  tnaierially  moral  acts,  and  (2)  acts 
which  ^xQ  fonnally  moral.  'I'iie  first  are  acts  good  in  them- 
selves, as  acts^  apart  from  any  intention  of  tiie  agent  which 
may  or  may  not  have  been  directed  toward  "  right."  The 
second  are  acts  winch  are  good  not  only  in  themselves,  as 
acts,  but  also  in  the  deliberate  intention  of  the  agent  who 
recognizes  his  actions  as  being  "  right."  Tluis  acts  may  be 
materially  moral  or  inunoral,  in  a  very  high  degree,  with- 
out being  in  the  lenst  formally  so.  For  example,  a  person 
may  tend  and  minister  to  a  sick  man  with  scrupulous  care 
and  exactuess,  having  in  view  all  the  time  nothing  but  tlie 
future  reception  of  a  good  legacy.  Another  may,  in  the 
dark,  shoot  his  own  father,  taking  him  to  be  an  assassin, 
and  so  commit  what  is  materially  an  act  of  parricide,  though 
formally  it  is  only  an  act  of  self-defence  of  more  or  less 
culpable  rashness.  A  woman  may  imioccntly,  because 
ignorantly,  marry  a  married  man,  and  so  connnit  a  material 
act  of  adultery.  She  may  discover  the  facts,  and  persist, 
and  so  make  her  act  formal  also. 

Actions  of  brutes,  such  as  those  of  the  bee,  the  ant,  or 
the  beaver,  however  materially  good  as  regards  their  rela- 
lations  to  the  community  to  which  such  aniuials  belong,  arc 
absolutely  destitute  of  tlic  most  incipient  degree  of  real,  i.  e., 
formal  "  goodness,"  because  unaccompanied  by  mental  acts 
of  conscious  will  directed  toward  the  fullUmcnt  of  duty. 
Apology  is  due  for  thus  stating  so  elementary  a  distinction, 
but  the  statement  is  not  superfluous,  for  confusion  of  thought, 
resulting  from  confounding  together  these  very  distinct 
things,  is  unfortunately  far  from  imcommon. 


IX.]  EVOLUTION  AND  ETHICS.  211 

Thus  some  Darwinians  assert  that  tlic  germs  of  morality 
exist  in  brutes,  and  we  liavc  seen  that  Mr.  Darwin  liitnsclf 
speculates  on  the  subject  as  regards  the  highest  apes.  It 
may  safely  be  affirmed,  however,  that  there  is  no  trace  in 
brutes  of  any  action  simulating  morality  which  are  not  ex- 
plicable by  the  fear  of  punishment,  by  the  hope  of  pleasure, 
or  by  personal  affection.  No  sign  of  moral  reprobation  is 
given  by  any  brute,  andj^et  had  such  existed  in  germ  through 
Darwinian  abysses  of  past  time,  some  evidence  of  its  exist- 
ence must  surely  have  been  rendered  perceptiljle  through 
"  survival  of  the  fittest"  in  other  forms  besides  man,  if  that 
"  survival "  has  alone  and  exclusively  produced  it  in  him. 

Abundant  examples  may,  indeed,  be  brought  forward 
of  useful  acts  which  sinuilate  morality,  such  as  parental 
care  of  the  young,  etc.  But  did  tlie  most  undeviating  ha])its 
guide  all  brutes  in  such  matters,  were  even  aged  and  infirm 
members  of  a  community  of  insects  or  birds  carefully  tended 
by  young  which  benefited  by  their  experience,  such  acts 
would  not  indicate  even  the  faintest  rudiment  of  real,  i.  c., 
formal,  morality.  "  Natural  Selection "  would,  of  course, 
often  lead  to  the  prevalence  of  acts  beneficial  to  a  commu- 
nity, and  to  acts  materialbj  good ;  but  unless  they  can  be 
shown  to  be  formally  so,  they  are  not  in  the  least  to  the 
point,  they  do  not  ofler  any  explanation  of  the  origin  of  an 
altogether  new  and  fundamentally  different  motive  and  con- 
ception. 

It  is  interesting,  on  the  otlier  hand,  to  note  Mr.  Darwin's 
statement  as  to  the  existence  of  a  distinct  moral  feeling, 
even  in,  perhaps,  the  very  lowest  and  most  degraded  of  all 
the  human  races  known  to  us.  Thus  in  the  same  "Journal 
of  Researches  "  '  before  quoted,  bearing  witness  to  the  exist- 
ence of  moral  reprobation  on  the  part  of  the  Fuegians,  he 
says :  "  The  nearest  approach  to  religious  feeling  which  I 
heard  of  was  shown  by  York  Minster  (a  Fuegian  so  named), 

»  Vol.  i.,  p.  215. 


212  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Ciur. 

who,  when  Mr,  Bynoc  sliot  some  very  fine  ducklings  as 
specimens,  declared  in  the  most  solemn  manner,  *  Oil,  Mr. 
Bynoe,  much  rain,  snow,  blow  nmcli.'  Tiiis  was  evidently 
a  retributive  punishment  for  wasting  liuman  food." 

Mr.  Wallace  gives  the  most  interesting  testimony,  in  his 
"  Malay  Archipelago,"  to  the  existence  of  a  very  distinct, 
and  in  some  instances  highly-developed  moral  sense  in  the 
natives  with  whom  he  came  in  contact.  In  one  case,'"  a 
Papuan,  who  had  been  paid  in  advance  for  bird-skins,  and 
who  had  not  been  able  to  fulfil  his  contract  before  Mr.  Wal- 
hice  was  on  the  point  of  starting,  "  came  running  down  after 
us  holding  up  a  bird,  and  saying  with  great  satisfaction, 
*  Now  I  owe  you  nothing  !' "  And  this  though  he  could 
have  withheld  payment  with  complete  impunity. 

Mr.  Wallace's  observations  and  opinions  on  this  head 
seem  hardly  to  meet  with  due  appreciation  in  Sir  John  Lub- 
bock's recent  work  on  Primitive  Man."  But  consideiing  the 
acute  powers  of  observation  and  the  industry  of  Mr.  AVal- 
lace,  and  especially  considering  the  years  he  passed  in  fa- 
miliar and  uninterrupted  intercourse  with  natives,  his  opin- 
ion and  testimony  should  surely  carry  willi  it  great  weight. 
lie  has  informed  the  author  that  he  found  a  stn^ngly-marked 
and  widely-dilVused  modest}',  in  sexual  matters,  among  all 
the  tribes  with  which  he  came  in  contact.  In  the  same  way 
Mr.  Bonwick,  in  his  work  on  the  Tasmanians,  testifies  to 
the  modesty  exhibited  by  the  naked  females  of  that  race, 
wiio  by  the  decorum  of  their  postures  gave  evidence  of  tlie 
possession  in  germ  of  what  under  circumstances  would  be- 
come the  highest  chastity  and  refinement. 

Hasty  and  incomplete  observations  and  inductions  are 
prejudicial  enough  to  physical  science,  but  when  their  elfect 
is   to  degrade  untruthfully  our  common  humanity,  there   is 

'°  "  Malay  Archipelago,"  vol.  ii.,  p.  305. 

"  "The  Origin  of  Civilizatiou  and  the  Primitive  Condition  of  Man," 
p.  261.     Longmans,  1870. 


IX.]  EVOLUTIOK   AND   KTIIICS.  213 

an  additional  motive  to  rcfrrc.t  tlicm.  A  hurried  visit  to  a 
tribe,  \vliose  language,  traditions,  and  customs  arc  unknown, 
is  sometimes  deemed  suflicicnt  for  "  smart "  remarks  as  to 
"  ape  characters,"  etc.,  uhich  are  as  untrue  as  irrelevant.  It 
should  not  be  forgotten  how  extremely  difhcult  it  is  to  enter 
into  the  ideas  and  feelings  of  an  alien  race.  If  in  the  nine- 
teenth century  a  French  theatrical  audience  can  witness 
with  acquiescent  approval,  as  a  type  of  English  manners 
and  ideas,  the  representation  of  a  marquis  who  sells  his  wife 
at  Smithfield,  etc.  etc.,  it  is  surely  no  wonder  if  the  ideas 
of  a  tribe  of  newly-visited  savages  should  be  more  or  less 
misunderstood.  To  enter  into  such  ideas  requires  long,  and 
familiar  intimac\',  like  that  experienced  by  the  explorer  of 
the  Malay  Archipelago.  From  him,  and  others,  we  have 
abundant  evidence  that  moral  ideas  exist  at  least  in  germ, 
in  savage  races  of  men,  while  they  sometimes  attain  even 
a  highly-developed  state.  No  amount  of  evidence  as  to  acts 
of  moral  depravity  is  to  the  point,  as  the  object  here  aimed 
at  is  to  cstal)lish  that  moral  intuitions  exist  in  savages,  not 
that  their  actions  are  good. 

Objections,  however,  are  sometimes  drawn  from  the 
different  notions  as  to  the  moral  value  of  certain  acts,  enter- 
tained by  men  of  various  countries  or  of  different  epochs  ; 
also  from  the  difficulty  of  knowing  what  particular  actions 
in  certain  cases  are  the  right  ones,  and  from  the  effects 
which  prejudice,  interest,  passion,  liabit,  or  even,  indirectly', 
physical  conditions,  may  have  upon  our  moral  perceptions. 
Thus  Sir  .John  lAibbock  speaks  "  of  certain  Feejeeans,  who, 
according  to  the  testimony  of  INIr.  Hunt,'*  have  the  custom 
of  piously  choking  their  parents  imdcr  certain  circum- 
stances, in  order  to  insure  their  happiness  in  a  future  life. 
Should  any  one  take  such  facts  as  telling  against  the  belief 
in  an  absolute  morality,  he  would  show  a  complete  misap- 

"  «'rriinitivc  Mnii,"  \\  218. 

>«  "Fiji  and  the  Fijians,"  vol.  i.,  p.  183. 


214  THE  GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

prohcnsion  of  the  point  in  dispute  j  for  such  facts  tell  in 
favor  of  it. 

Were  it  asserted  that  man  possesses  a  distinct  innate 
power  and  faculty  by  which  he  is  made  intuitively  aware 
what  acts  considered  in  and  by  themselves  are  right  and 
what  wrong — an  infallible  and  universal  internal  code — 
the  illustration  would  be  to  the  point.  But  all  that  need 
be  contended  for  is  that  the  intellect  perceives  not  only 
truth,  but  also  a  quality  of  "higher"  which  ought  to  be 
followed,  and  of  "  lower "  which  ought  to  be  avoided  ; 
when  two  lines  of  conduct  are  presented  to  the  will  for 
choice,  the  intellect  so  acting  beinjj  the  conscience. 

This  has  been  well  put  by  Mr.  James  Maitineau  in  his 
excellent  essay  on  Whewell's  Morality.  lie  says :  '*  "  If 
moral  good  were  a  quality  resident  in  each  action,  as 
whiteness  in  snow,  or  sweetness  in  fruits ;  and  if  the  moral 
faculty  was  our  appointed  instrument  for  detecting  its 
presence ;  many  consequences  would  ensue  which  are  at 
variance  with  fact.  Tlie  wide  range  of  dilfercnces  observ- 
able in  the  ethical  judgments  of  men  would  not  exist ;  and 
even  if  they  did,  could  no  more  be  reduced  and  modified 
by  discussion  than  constitutional  ditferences  of  hearing  or 
of  vision.  And,  as  the  quality  of  moral  good  either  must 
or  must  not  exist  in  every  important  operation  of  the  will, 
we  should  discern  its  presence  or  absence  separately  in 
each ;  and  even  though  we  never  had  the  conception  of 
more  than  one  insulated  action,  we  should  be  able  to 
pronounce  upon  its  character.  This,  however,  we  have 
plainly  no  power  to  do.  Every  moral  judgment  is  rela- 
tive, and  involves  a  comparison  of  two  terms.  AVHien  we 
praise  what  has  been  done,  it  is  with  the  coexistent  con- 
cej)tion  of  something  else  that  niujht  have  been  done; 
and  when  we  resolve  on  a  course  as  rioht,  it  is  to  the 
exclusion  of  some  other  that    is   wrong.     This  fact,   that 

"  "Essays,"  Second  Series,  vol.  ii.,  p.  13. 


IX.]  EVOLUTION   AND   ETHICS.  215 

every  ethical  decision  is  in  truth  a  j^refcrence,  an  election 
of  one  act  as  higher  than  another,  appears  of  fundamental 
importance  in  the  analysis  of  the  moral  sentiments." 

From  this  point  of  view  it  is  plain  how  trifling-  are 
arguments  drawn  from  the  acts  of  a  savage,  since  an  action 
higlily  immoral  in  us  might  be  one  exceedingly  virtuous 
in  him — being  the  highest  presented  to  his  choice  in 
his  degraded  intellectual  condition  and  peculiar  circum- 
stances. 

It  need  only  be  contended,  then,  that  there  is  a 
perception  of  "  right "  incapable  of  further  analysis ;  not 
that  there  is  any  infallible  internal  guide  as  to  all  the 
complex  actions  which  present  themselves  for  choice.  Tlie 
princijyle  is  given  in  our  nature,  the  applicatioyi  of  the 
principle  is  the  result  of  a  thousand  educational  influences. 

It  is  no  wonder,  then,  tliat,  in  comj)lex  "  cases  of 
conscience,"  it  is  sometimes  a  matter  of  exceeding  difliculty 
to  determine  which  of  two  courses  of  action  is  the  less 
objectionable.  This  ho  more  invalidates  the  truth  of 
moral  j)rinciples  than  does  the  difficulty  of  a  mathematical 
problem  east  doubt  on  mathematical  principles.  Habit, 
education,  and  intellectual  gifts,  facilitate  the  correct  appli- 
cation of  both. 

Again,  if  our  moral  insight  is  intensified  or  blunted  by 
our  habitual  wishes,  or,  indirectly,  by  our  physical  condition, 
the  same  may  be  said  of  our  perception  of  the  true  rela- 
tions of  physical  facts  one  to  another.  An  eager  wish  for 
marriage  has  led  many  a  man  to  exaggerate  the  powers 
of  a  limited  income,  and  a  fit  of  d^'spepsia  has  given 
an  unreasonably  gloomy  aspect  to  more  than  one  balanco 
sheet. 

Considering  that  moral  intuitions  have  to  do  with 
ifisetisihle  matters,  they  cannot  be  expected  to  be  more 
clear  than  the-  perception  of  physical  facts.  And  if  the 
latter  joerce2>tions  may  be  influenced  by  volition,  desire,  or 


21 G  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Ciup. 

liealtli,  our  moral  views  may  also  be  expected  to  be  so 
intluenced,  and  tliis  in  a  higher  degree  because  they  so 
often  run  counter  to  our  desires.  A  bottle  or  two  of  wine 
may  make  a  sensible  object  ajipear  double  ;  Avhat  wonder, 
then,  if  our  moral  perceptions  are  eonietinies  warped  and 
distorted  by  such  powerful  agencies  as  an  evil  education  or 
an  habitual  absence  of  self-restraint.  In  neither  case  docs 
occasional  distortion  invalidate  tlie  accuracy  of  normal  and 
habitual  perception. 

The  distinctness  here  and  now  of  the  ideas  of  "  right  " 
and  "  useful  "  is,  however,  as  before  said,  fully  conceded  by 
Air.  Herbert  Spencer,  although  he  contends  that  these  con- 
ceptions are  one  in  root  and  origin. 

His  utilitarian  Genesis  of  Morals,  however,  has  been 
recently  combated  by  Mr.  Richard  Holt  Hutton,  in  a  paper 
which  appeared  in  J/acmillan^s  Magazine.^'' 

This  writer  aptly  objects  an  aryunientuni  ad  hominem, 
applying  to  morals  the  same  argument  that  has  been  ap- 
plied in  this  work  to  our  sense  of  nuisical  harmony,  and 
by  Mr.  Wallace  to  the  vocal  organs  of  man. 

Mr.  Herbert  Spencer's  notions  on  the  subject  are  thus 
expressed  by  himself :  "  To  make  my  position  fully  under- 
stood, it  seems  needful  to  add  that,  corresjjonding  to  tiie 
fundamental  propositions  of  a  developed  moral  science, 
there  have  been,  and  still  are,  developing  in  the  race  certain 
fundamental  intuitions  ;  and  that,  though  these  moral  intui- 
tions are  the  result  of  accumulated  experiences  of  utility 
gradually  organized  and  inherited,  they  have  come  to  be 
quite  independent  of  conscious  experience.  Just  in  the 
same  way  that  I  believe  the  intuition  of  space  possessed  hy 
any  living  individual  to  have  arisen  from  organized  and 
consolidated  exj)eriences  of  all  antecedent  individuals,  who 
bequeathed  to  him  their  slowly-developed  nervous  organi- 
zations; just  as  I  believe  that  this  intuiti(jh,  requiring  only 

'5  See  No.  117,  July,  18G9,  p.  272. 


IX.]  EVOLUTION  AND  ETHICS.  217 

to  be  made  definite  and  coni])lctc  hy  personal  experiences, 
lias  j)racf  ically  become  a  form  of  thought  (jiiite  independent 
cf  experience; — so  do  I  believe  that  tlie  experiences  of 
utility,  organized  and  consolidated  through  all  j)ast  gen- 
erations of  the  human  race,  have  been  producing  corre- 
Bj)()nding  nervous  modifications  wiu'cli,  by  continued  trans- 
missions and  accumulatidu,  have  become  in  us  certain 
faculties  of  moral  intuition,  active  emotions  responding  to 
right  and  wrong  conduct,  Avlii(;h  have  no  apparent  basis  in 
the  individual  experiences  of  utility.  I  also  hold  that,  just 
as  the  space  intuition  rcsjionds  to  the  exact  demonstrations 
of  geometry,  and  has  its  rough  conclusions  interpreted  and 
verified  by  them,  so  will  moral  intuitions  respond  to  the 
demonstrations  of  moral  science,  and  will  have  their  rough 
conclusions  interpreted  and  verified  by  them." 

Against  this  view  of  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer,  Mr.  Hutton 
objects:  "1.  That  even  as  regards  Mr.  Spencer's  illustra- 
tion from  geometrical  intuitions,  his  process  would  be 
totally  inadequate,  since  you  could  not  deduce  the  neces- 
sary space  intuition  of  which  he  speaks  from  any  possible 
accumulations  of  familiarity  with  sj)ace  relations.  ,  .  .  We 
cannot  inherit  more  than  than  our  fathers  had :  no  amount 
of  experience  of  facts,  however  universal,  can  give  rise  to 
that  particular  characteristic  of  intuitions  and  a  priori 
ideas,  which  compels  us  to  deny  the  possibility  that  in  any 
other  world,  however  otherwise  dilTcrent,  our  experience  (as 
to  space  relations)  could  be  otherwise. 

"2.  That  the  case  of  moral  intuitions  is  very  much 
stronger. 

"  3.  That  if  Mr.  Si)encer's  theory  accounts  for  any  thing, 
it  accounts  not  for  the  deepening  of  a  sense  of  utility  and 
inutility  into  right  and  wrong,  but  for  the  drying  up  of  the 
sense?  of  utility  and  inutility  into  mere  inherent  tendencies, 
which  would  exercise  over  us  not  more  authority  but  less, 
than  a  rational  sense  of  utilitarian  issues. 
10 


218  THE  GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

"4.  Tliat  ^Ir.  Spencer's  theory  could  not  account  for 
the  intuitional  sacreduess  now  attached  to  i/uUv Idtcal  movnl 
rules  and  princii)lcs,  without  accounting  a  fortiori  for  the 
general  claim  of  tlie  greatest-happiness  principle  over  us  as 
the  final  moral  intuition — which  is  conspicuously  contrary 
to  the  fact,  as  not  even  the  utilitarians  themselves  plead  any 
instinctive  or  intuitive  sanction  for  their  great  principle. 

"  5.  That  there  is  no  trace  of  positive  evidence  of  any 
sinjjle  instance  of  the  transformation  of  a  utilitarian  rule  of 
right  into  an  intuition,  since  we  find  no  utilitarian  princi])le 
of  the  most  ancient  times  which  is  now  an  accepted  moral 
intuition,  nor  any  moral  intuition,  however  gacred,  which 
has  not  been  promulgated  tliousands  of  years  ago,  and 
which  has  not  constantly  had  to  stop  the  tide  of  utilitarian 
objections  to  its  authority — and  this  age  after  age,  in  our 
own  day  quite  as  much  as  in  days  gone  by.  .  .  .  Surely,  if 
any  thing  is  remarkable  in  the  history  of  morality,  it  is 
the  anticipator}/  character,  if  I  may  use  the  expression,  of 
moral  princi})les — the  intensity  and  absoluteness  with  which 
they  are  laid  down  ages  before  the  world  has  api:>roximated 
to  the  ideal  thus  asserted." 

Sir  John  I^nbbock,  in  his  work  on  Primitive  Man  before 
referred  to,  abandons  Mr.  Spencer's  explanation  of  the  gene- 
sis of  morals  while  referring  to  Mr.  Hutton's  criticisms  on 
the  subject.  Sir  John  proposes  to  substitute  "  deference 
to  authority"  instead  of  "sense  of  interest"  as  the  origin 
of  our  conception  of  "  duty,"  saying  that  what  has  been 
found  to  be  beneficial  has  been  traditionally  inculcated  on  the 
young,  and  thus  has  become  to  be  disassociated  from  "in- 
terest "  in  the  mind,  though  the  inculcation  itself  originally 
sprung  from  that  source.  This,  however,  when  analj'^zed, 
turns  out  to  be  a  distinction  without  a  diirereiue.  It  is 
nothing  but  utilitarianism,  pure  and  sim})le,  after  all.  For 
it  can  never  be  intended  that  authority  is  ol^eyed  because 
of  an  intuition  that  it  should  be  deferred  to,  for  that  would 


IX.]  EVOLUTIOxV  AND  ETHICS.  219 

be  to  admit  the  very  princii)le  of  absolute  morality  which 
Sir  John  combats.  It  must  be  meant,  then,  tliat  authority 
is  obeyed  through  fear  of  the  consequences  of  disobedience, 
or  through  pleasure  felt  in  obeying  the  authority  which 
commands.  In  the  latter  case  we  have  "pleasure"  as  the 
end  and  no  rudiment  of  the  conception  of  "  duty."  In  the 
former  we  have  fear  of  punishment,  which  appeals  directly 
to  the  sense  of  "  utility  to  the  individual,"  and  no  amount 
of  such  a  sense  will  produce  the  least  germ  of  "  ought," 
which  is  a  conception  different  in  /cind,  and  in  which  the 
notion  of  "punishment"  has  no  place.  Thus,  Sir  John 
I^ubbo(;k\s  explanation  only  concerns  a  inode  in  which  the 
sense  of  "duty"  may  be  stimulated  or  appealed  to,  and 
makes  no  aj)proximation  to  an  explanation  of  its  origin. 

Could  the  views  of  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer,  of  Mr.  Mill,  or 
of  Mr.  Darwin,  on  this  subject  be  maintained,  or  should  they 
come  to  be  generally  accepted,  the  consecjuences  would  be 
disastrous  indeed  I  Were  it  really  the  case  that  virtue  was 
a  mere  hind  of'^retrieviiir/^''  then  certainly  we  should  have 
to  view  with  apprehension  the  spread  of  intellectual  culti- 
vation, wliich  would  lead  the  human  "retrievers"  to  regard 
from  a  new  point  of  view  their  fetching  and  carrying.  We 
should  be  logically  compelled  to  acquiesce  in  the  vocifera- 
tions of  some  Continental  utilitarians,  who  would  banish 
altogether  the  senseless  words  "  duty  "  and  "  merit ;  "  and 
then,  one  important  influence  which  has  aided  human  prog- 
ress being  w^ithdrawn,  we  should  be  reduced  to  hope  that 
in  this  case  the  maxim  ccssa?ite  causa  cessat  ij)se  effectus 
might  through  some  incalculable  accident  fail  to  a})ply. 

It  is  true  that  Mr.  Spencer  tries  to  erect  a  safeguard 
against  such  moral  disruption,  by  asserting  that  for  every 
immoral  act,  word,  or  thought,  each  man  during  this  life 
receives  miimte  and  exact  retribution,  and  that  thus  a  re- 
gard for  individual  self-interest  will  eflectually  prevent  any 
moral  catastrophe.     But  by  what  means  will  he  enforce  the 


220  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

acceptance  of  a  dogma  wliich  is  not  only  incapable  of  proof^ 
but  is  opposed  to  the  commonly-received  opinion  of  man- 
kind in  all  ages?  Ancient  literature,  sacred  and  profane, 
teems  "with  protests  against  the  successful  evil-doer,  and 
certainly,  as  Mr.  Hutton  observes,*"  "  Honesty  must  have 
been  associated  by  our  ancestors  with  many  unliajipy  as 
well  as  many  happy  consequences,  and  we  know  that  in 
ancient  Greece  dishonesty  was  openly  and  actually  asso- 
ciated with  happy  consequences.  .  .  .  when  tlie  concen- 
trated experience  of  previous  generations  was  lield,  not  in- 
deed to  justify,  but  to  excuse  by  utilitarian  considerations, 
craft,  dissimulation,  sensuality,  selfishness." 

This  dogma  is  opposed  to  the  moral  consciousness  of 
many  as  to  the  events  of  their  own  lives ;  and  the  author, 
for  one,  believes  that  it  is  absolutely  contrary  to  fact. 

History  aflbrds  multitudes  of  instances,  but  an  example 
may  be  selected  from  one  of  the  most  critical  periods  of 
modern  times.  Let  it  be  granted  that  Louis  XVI.  of 
France  and  his  queen  had  all  the  defects  attributed  to 
them  by  the  most  hostile  of  serious  historians;  let  all 
the  excuses  possible  be  made  for  his  predecessor,  Louis 
XV.,  and  also  for  Madame  de  Pompadour,  can  it  be  pre- 
tended that  there  are  grounds  for  alfirming  that  the  vices 
of  the  two  former  so  far  exceeded  those  of  the  latter, 
that  their  respective  fates  were  plainly  and  evidently  just? 
that  while  the  two  former  died  in  their  beds,  after  a  life  of 
the  most  extreme  luxury,  the  others  merited  to  stand  forth 
through  coming  time  as  examples  of  the  most  appalling 
and  calamitous  tragedy  ? 

This  theme,  however,  is  too  foreign  to  the  immediate 
matter  in  hand  to  be  further  pursued,  tempting  as  it  is. 
But  a  passing  protest  against  a  superstitious  ami  deluding 
dogma  may  stand — a  dogma  which  may,  like  any  other 
dogma,  be  vehemently  asserted  and  maintained,  but  which 

"  MacmillaiVs  Magazine,  No.  117,  July,  1869. 


IX.]  EVOLUTION    AND   ETHICS.  221 

is  remarkable  for  being  destitute,  at  one  and  the  same  time, 
of  both  authoritative  sanction  and  the  support  of  reason 
and  observation. 

To  return  to  the  bearing  of  moral  conceptions  on  "  Nat- 
ural Selection,"  it  seems  that,  from  the  reasons  given  in 
this  chapter,  we  may  safely  affirm :  1.  That  "  Natural  Se- 
lection "  could  not  have  produced,  from  the  sensations  of 
pleasure  and  pain  experienced  by  brutes,  a  higher  degree 
of  morality  than  was  useful ;  therefore  it  could  have  pro- 
duced any  amount  of  "  beneficial  habits,"  but  not  abhor- 
rence of  certain  acts  as  impure  and  sinful. 

2.  That  it  could  not  have  developed  that  high  esteem 
for  acts  of  care  and  tenderness  to  the  aged  and  infirm  which 
actually  exists,  but  would  rather  have  })erpetuated  certain 
low  social  conditions  which  obtain  in  some  savage  locali- 
ties. 

3.  Tliat  it  could  not  have  evolved  from  ape  sensations 
the  noble  virtue  of  a  Marcus  Aurelius,  or  the  loving  but 
manly  devotion  of  a  St.  I^ouis. 

4.  That,  alone,  it  could  not  have  given  rise  to  the  maxim 
Jiat  justitia^  mat  coelum. 

5.  That  the  interval  between  material  and  formal  mo- 
rality is  one  altogether  beyond  its  power  to  traverse. 

Also,  that  the  anticipatory  character  of  moral  principles 
is  a  fatal  bar  to  that  explanation  of  their  origin  which  is 
offered  to  us  by  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer.  And,  finally,  that 
the  solution  of  that  origin  proposed  recently  by  Sir  John 
Lubbock  is  a  mere  version  of  simple  utilitarianism,  appeal- 
ing to  the  pleasure  or  safety  of  the  individual,  and  there- 
fore utterly  incapable  of  solving  the  riddle  it  attacks. 

Such  appearing  to  be  the  case  as  to  the  power  of  "  Nat- 
ural Selection,"  we,  nevertheless,  find  moral  conceptions — 
formally  moral  ideas — not  only  spread  over  the  civilized 
world,  but  manifesting  themselves  unmistakably  (in  how- 
ever  rudimentary   a  condition,  and  however   misapplied) 


222  THE   GENESIS   OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

among  the  lowest  and  most  degraded  of  savages.  If  from 
among  these,  individuals  can  be  brought  forward  who  seem 
to  be  destitute  of  any  moral  conception,  similar  cases  also 
may  easily  be  found  in  highly-civilized  communities.  Such 
cases  tell  no  more  against  moral  intuitions  than  do  cases 
of  color-blindness  or  idiotism  tell  against  sight  and  reason. 
We  have  thus  a  most  important  and  conspicuous  fact,  the 
existence  of  which  is  fatal  to  the  theory  of  "  Natural  Selec- 
tion," as  put  forward  of  late  by  Mr.  Darwin  and  his  most 
ardent  followers.  It  must  be  remarked,  however,  that  what- 
ever force  this  fact  may  have  against  a  belief  in  the  origi- 
nation of  man  from  brutes  by  minute,  fortuitous  variations, 
it  has  no  force  whatever  against  the  conception  of  the  or- 
derl}'^  evolution  and  successive  manifestation  of  specific 
forms  by  ordinary  natural  law — even  if  we  include  among 
such  the  upright  frame,  the  ready  hand,  and  massive  brain,  ^ 
of  man  himself. 


X]  PANGENESIS.  223 


CHAPTER  X 

PANGENESIS. 

A  rrovlslonnl  Hypothesis  Bupploinpntinp  "  Nntiira!  Solocflon."— St/itemcnt  of  the  Hy- 
pothesis.—Diflicnlty  ns  to  MtiltUudo  of  Gonimulos.— As  to  Ccrtiiin  Mo<lc8  of  Uc- 
produotion. — As  to  Formntions  without  tlio  I'oqiiislto  Gpmmiiles. — Mr.  I>ewos  nnd 
Prof.  Dolpino. — Difllculty  n.s  to  l)c vclopmcnt.il  Force  of  ricmmnlcs.— As  to  their 
Pponfnneous  Ussion.— Pniipenesls  nnd  Vitalism.— Pnmdo.xicnJ  Reality.— rnnpcne- 
flis  Pcnrcoly  fliipcrior  to  Anterior  Hypothesis. — Huflbn.—0>Ten.— Herbert  Spen- 
cer.— "  Ociiuniilea  "  oa  MyBtcrlous  tia  "  Phyaiologlcal  Units."— ConcJusion. 

In  addition  to  the  theory  of  "  Natural  Selection,"  by 
which  it  has  been  attempted  to  account  lor  the  origin  of 
species,  Mr.  Darwin  has  also  put  forward  what  he  modestly 
terms  "  a  provisional  hypothesis"  (that  of  Vangcncsis)^hY 
which  to  account  for  the  origin  of  each  and  every  individ- 
ual form. 

Now,  though  the  hypothesis  of  Pangenesis  is  no  neces- 
sary part  of  "  Natural  Selection,"  still  any  treatise  on  spe- 
cific origination  would  be  incomplete  if  it  did  not  take 
into  consideration  this  last  speculation  of  Mr.  Darwin.  The 
liypothesis  in  question  may  be  stated  as  follows  :  That  each 
living  organism  is  ultimately  made  up  of  an  almost  infinite 
number  of  minute  particles,  or  organic  atoms,  termed"  gem- 
mulos,"  each  of  which  has  the  power  of  n^producing  i(s 
kind.  Moreover,  that  these  particles  circulate  freely  about 
the  organism  which  is  made  up  of  them,  and  are  derived 
from  all  the  parts  of  all  the  organs  of  the  less  remote  an- 
cestors of  each  such  organism  during  all  the  states  and 
stages  of  such  several  ancestors'  existence  ;  and  therefore  of 
the  several  states  of  each  of  such  ancestors'  organs.  That 
such  a  com])lete  collection  of  gemmulcs  is  aggregated  in 


224  THE  GENESIS   OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

each  ovum  and  spermatozoon  in  most  animals,  and  each  part 
capable  of  reproducing  by  gemmation  (bu<Uliiig)  in  the  low- 
est animals  and  in  plants.  Therefore  in  many  of  such  low- 
er organisms  such  a  congeries  of  ancestral  gemmules  must 
exist  in  every  part  of  their  bodies,  since  in  them  every  part 
is  capable  of  reproducing  by  gemmation.  Mr.  Darwin 
must  evidently  admit  this,  since  he  says:  "It  has  often 
been  said  by  naturalists  tliat  each  cell  of  a  plant  lias  the 
actual  or  i)otential  capacity  of  reproducing  the  whole 
plant;  but  it  has  this  power  only  in  virtue  of  containing 
gemmules  derived  from  everi/ jyart.^^  ^ 

Moreover,  these  gemmules  are  supposed  to  tend  to 
aggregate  themselves,  and  to  reproduce  in  certain  definite 
relations  to  other  gemmules.  Thus,  when  the  foot  of  an 
eft  is  cut  off,  its  reproduction  is  explained  by  Mr.  Darwin 
as  resulting  from  the  aggregation  of  those  lloating  gem- 
mules which  come  next  in  order  to  those  of  the  cut  surface, 
and  the  successive  aggregations  of  the  other  kinds  of  gem- 
mules which  come  after  in  regidar  order.  Also,  the  most 
ordinary  processes  of  repair  are  similarly  accounted  for, 
and  the  successive  develoj^mcnt  of  similar  ])arts  and  organs 
in  creatures  in  which  such  complex  evolulions  o(x;ur  is  ex- 
plained in  the  same  way,  by  the  independent  action  of 
separate  gemmules. 

In  order  that  each  living  creature  may  be  thus  furnished, 
the  number  of  such  gemmules  in  each  must  be  inconceiv- 
ably great.  Mr.  Darwin  says :  ^  "  In  a  highly-organized 
and  complex  animal,  the  gemmules  thrown  olf  from  each 
diflerent  cell  or  unit  throughout  the  body  nuist  be  incon- 
ceivably numerous  and  minute.  Each  unit  of  each  part,  as 
it  changes  during  development — and  we  know  that  some 
insects  undergo  at  least  twenty  metiunor})lioses  —  must 
throw   off  its   gemmules.      All   organic   beings,   moreover, 

'  "  Animals  and  Plants  under  Domestication,"  vol.  ii.,  p.  403. 
«  Ibid.,  p.  366. 


X.]  PANGENESIS.  225 

include  many  dormant  gcmmulcs  derived  from  their  grand- 
parents and  more  remote  progenitors,  but  not  from  all  their 
progenitors.     These  almost  injiniiely  mnnerovs  and  minute 
gemmules  must  be  included   in  each  bud,  ovule,  spermato- 
zoon, and    pollen-grain."      "VVe   have    seen    also    that   in 
certain   cases,  a  similar  multitude   of    gemmules  must   be 
included  also  in  every  considerable  part  of  the  whole  body 
of  each  organism,  but  where  are  we  to  stop  ?     There  must 
be   gemmules,  not  only  from   every  organ,  but   from  every 
component  part   of  such   organ,  from  every  subdivision  of 
such  component  part,  and  from  every  cell,  thread,  or  fibre, 
entering  into  the  composition  of  such  subdivision.     More- 
over, not  only  from  all   these,  but  from  each  and  every  suc- 
cessive stage  of  the  evolution  and  development  of    such 
successively  more  and  more  elementary  parts.     At  the  first 
glance  this  new  atomic  theory  has  charms  from  its  apparent 
simplicity,  but  the  attempt  thus  to  follow  it  out  into  its 
ultimate  limits  and  extreme  consequences  seems  to  indicate 
that  it  is  at  once  insufficient  and  cumbrous. 

Mr.  Darwin  himself  is,  of  course,  fully  aware  that  there 
must  be  sowc  limit  to  this  aggregation  of  gemmules.  He 
says : '  "  Excessively  minute  and  numerous  as  they  are 
believed  to  be,  an  infinite  number  derived,  during  a  long 
course  of  modification  and  descent,  from  each  cell  of  each 
progenitor,  could  not  be  supported  and  nourished  by  the 
organism." 

But  apart  from  tlicse  matters,  which  will  be  more  fully 
considered  further  on,  the  hypothesis  not  only  does  not 
appear  to  account  for  certain  phenomena  which,  in  order 
to  be  a  valid  theory,  it  ought  to  account  for  ;  but  it  seems 
absolutely  to  conflict  with  patent  and  notorious  facts. 

How,  for  example,  does  it  explain  the  peculiar  repro- 
duction which  is  found  to  take  place  in  certain  marine  worms 
— certain  annelids  ? 

•  "Animals  and  Plants  under  Domestication,"  vol.  11.,  p.  402. 


226 


TIIK   GENESIS   OF   SPECIE;-;. 


[Chap. 


In  sucn  creatures  we  sec  that,  from  time  to  time,  one  of 
the  segments  of  tlie  body  gradually  becomes  modified  till  it 
assumes  the  condition  of  a  head    and  this  remarkable   phe- 


AN  AKVEI.rD  DrrrDING   SP0NTANE0TT8LT. 

(A  new  head  havuig  been  formed  toward  the  hinder  end  of  the  body  of  the  parent.) 

nomenon  is  repeated  again  and  again,  the  ])ody  of  the  worm 
thus  multiplying  serially  into  new  individuals  which  succes- 
sively detach  themselves  from  the  older  portion.  The 
development  of  such  a  mode  of  reproduction  by  "  Natin-al 
Selection  "  seems  not  less  inexplicable  than  docs  its  contin- 
ued performance  through  the  aid 'of  "pangenesis."  For 
how  can  gemmules  attach  themselves  to  others  to  which 
they  do  not  normally  or  generally  succeed  ?     Scarcely  less 


X.]  PANGENESIS.  ^27 

(Hfficiilfc  to  understand  is  the  process  of  the  stomacli- 
carrjing'-ofr  mode  of  metamorphosis  before  spoken  of  as  • 
existing  in  the  Echinodcrms.  Next,  as  to  certain  patent 
and  notorious  facts :  On  the  liypothcsis  of  pangenesis,  no 
creature  can  develop  an  organ  unless  it  possesses  tlic 
component  gcnunules  which  serve  for  its  formation.  No 
crcattu'C  can  p'jr.sess  such  gcmmules  unless  it  inherits  thcin 
from  its  parents,  grandj')arents,  or  its  less  remote  ancestors. 
Now,  the  Jews  are  remarkably  scrupulous  as  to  marriage, 
and  rarely  contract  such  a  union  with  individuals  not  of 
their  own  race.  This  practice  has  gone  on  for  thousands 
of  years,  and  similarly  also  for  tliousands  of  years  the  rite 
of  circumcision  has  been  unfailingly  and  carefully  performed. 
If  then  the  hypothesis  of  pangenesis  is  well  founded,  tliat 
rite  ought  to  l)C  now  al>solutely  or  nearly  superfluous  from 
the  necessarily  contiimous  absence  of  certain  gemnuiles 
through  so  many  centuries  and  so  many  generations.  Yet 
it  is  not  at  all  so,  and  this  fact  seems  to  amount  almost 
to  an  experimental  demonstration  that  the  hypothesis  of 
pangenesis  is  an  insufficient  explanation  of  individual  evo- 
lution. 

Two  exceedingly  good  criticisms  of  Mr.  Darwin^s  hy- 
pothesis have  appeared.  One  of  these  is  by  Mr.  G.  H. 
Lewes,*  the  other  by  Prof.  Delpino  of  Florence."  The  latter 
gentleman  gives  a  report  of  an  observation  made  by  him 
upon  a  certain  plant,  which  observation  adds  force  to  what 
has  just  been  said  about  the  Jewish  race.  He  says  :  '  "If 
we  examine  and  compare  the  numerous  species  of  the 
genus  Salvia,  conunencing  with  Salvia  officinalis,  which 
may  pass  as  the  main  state  of  the  genus,  and  concluding 

<  Sec  Fnrlnifjflifhf  Jfrview,  New  Scrie.q,  vol.  ili.,  April,  1808,  p.  352. 

6  This  appeared  in  the  Revista  Contonjyyranca  Nozionah  Ifn/lana^  nnd 
was  translated  and  given  to  the  Eni^lish  public  in  SrinUifir.  Opinion  for 
September  29,  October  0,  and  October  13,  1809,  pp.  305,  391,  407. 

«  See  Scientific  Opinion,  of  October  13,  18G9,  p.  407. 


228  THE   GEiVESIS   OF  SPECKS.  [Chap. 

with  Salvia  vertlcillata,  wliicli  may  be  taken  as  the  most 
liiglily-tleveloped  form,  and  as  the  most  distant  from  tiie 
type,  we  observe  u  singuhir  ])henomenon.  The  lower  cell 
of  each  of  the  two  fertile  anthers,  which  is  much  reduced 
and  different  from  the  superior  even  in  Salvia  ojflci/ialis, 
is  transmuted  in  other  salv'ue  into  an  organ  (nectarotheca) 
having  a  very  difl'erent  form  and  function,  and  linally  dis- 
appears entirely  in  Salvia  verticillata. 

"  Now,  on  one  occasion,  in  a  flower  belonging  to  an 
individual  of  Salvia  verticillata,  and  only  on  the  left  stamen, 
I  observed  a  perfectly-developed  and  polliniferous  lower 
cell,  perfectly  homologous  with  that  which  is  normally 
developed  in  Salvia  officinalis.  This  case  of  atavism  is 
truly  singular.  According  to  the  theory  of  Pangenesis,  it 
is  necessary  to  assume  that  all  the  gennnules  of  this  anom- 
alous formation,  and  therefore  the  mother-gemmulc  of  the 
cell,  and  the  danghter-gemnmles  of  the  special  epidermic 
tissue,  and  of  the  very  singular  subjacent  tissue  of  the 
endothecium,  have  been  perpetuated,  and  transmitted  from 
parent  to  offspring  in  a  dormant  stat(j,  and  through  a 
nund)er  of  generations,  such  as  startles  the  imagination,  and 
leads  it  to  refuse  its  consent  to  Ihe  theory  of  Pangenesis, 
however  seductive  it  may  be."  This  seems  a  strong  confir- 
mation of  what  has  been  here  advanced. 

The  main  objection  raised  against  Mr.  Darwin's  hy- 
pothesis is  that  it  (Pangenesis)  requires  so  many  subordi- 
nate hypotheses  for  its  support,  and  that  some  of  these  are 
not  tenable. 

Professor  Delpino  considers  '  that  as  many  as  eight 
of  these  subordinate  hypotheses  are  required;  namely, 
that — 

"  1.  Tlie  emission  of  the  gemmules  takes  place,  or  may 
take  place,  in  all  states  of  the  cell. 

'  See  Scientijic  Opinion^  of  September  29,  18G9,  p.  366. 


X.]  PANGENESIS.  229 

"  2.  TiiG  quantity  of  gcmmulcs  emitted  from  every  cell 
is  very  groat. 

"  3.  The  minuteness  of  the  gemmules  is  extreme. 

"  4.  The  gemmules  possess  two  sorts  of  affinity,  one  of 
T>'hich  miglit  be  called  projyagative,  and  the  other  germina- 
tive  allinity. 

"5.  J5y  means  of  tlie  propngativc  affniity  all  the 
gemnniles  emitted  by  all  the  cells  of  the  individual  flow 
together  and  become  condensed  in  the  cells  which  compose 
the  sexual  organs,  -whether  male  or  female  (embryonal  vesi- 
cle, cells  of  the  embryo,  pollen-grains,  fovilla,  antherozoids, 
spermatozoids),  and  likewise  flow  together  and  become  con- 
densed in  the  cells  which  constitute  the  organs  of  a  sexual 
or  agamic  reproduction  (buds,  spores,  bulbilli,  portions  of 
the  body  separated  by  scission,  etc.). 

"  G.  J3y  means  of  the  germinative  afTniity,  every  gem  mule 
(except  in  cases  of  anomalies  or  monstrosities)  can  be  devcl- 
ojied  only  in  cells  homologous  Avith  the  mother-cells  of  the 
cell  from  which  they  originated.  In  other  words,  the  gem- 
mules from  any  cell  can  only  be  developed  in  unison  with 
the  cell  preceding  it  in  due  order  of  succession,  and  while 
in  a  nascent  state. 

"  7.  Of  each  kind  of  gemmule  a  great  number  perishes  ; 
a  great  number  remains  in  a  dormant  state  through  many 
generations  in  the  bodies  of  descendants ;  the  remainder 
germinate  and  reproduce  the  mother-cell. 

"  8.  Every  gemmule  may  multiply  itself  by  a  process  of 
scission  into  any  number  of  equivalent  gemmules." 

Mr.  Darwin  has  published  a  short  notice  in  reply  to 
Prof.  Uclpino,  in  Scientific  Opitiion  of  October  20,  18G9, 
p.  426.  In  this  reply  he  admits  the  justice  of  Prof.  Del- 
pino's  attack,  but  objects  to  the  alleged  necessity  of  the 
first  subordinate  hypothesis,  namely,  that  "the  emission  of 
gemnmles  takes  place  in  all  states  of  the  cell."  But  if  this 
is  not  the  case,  then  a  great  part  of  the  utility  and  dis- 


230  THE  GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

tinction  of  pangenesis  is  destroyed ;  or,  as  Mr.  Lewes 
justly  says,'  "If  gemmules  produce  whole  cells,  we  have 
the  very  power  which  was  pronounced  mysterious  in  larger 
organisms." 

Mr.  Darwin  also  does  not  see  the  force  of  the  objection 
to  the  power  of  self-division  which  must  be  asserted  of  the 
gemmules  tliemselvcs  if  Pangenesis  be  true.     The  objection, 
liowever,  appears  to  many  to  be  formidable.     To  admit  the 
power  of  spontaneous  division   and  multii)lication  in  such 
rudimentary  structures,    seems   a   complete    contradiction. 
The  gemmules,   by  the  hypothesis   of  Pangenesis,  are  the 
ultimate  organized  components  of  the  body,  the  absolute 
organic  atoms  of  which  each  body  is  composed ;  how  then 
can  they  be  divisible  ?     Any  part  of  a  gemmule  would  be 
an  impossible  (because  a  less  than  possible)  quantity.     If  it 
is  divisible  into  still   smaller  organic  wholes,  as  a  germ-cell 
is,  it  must  be  made  up,  as  the  germ-cell  is,  of  subordinate 
component  atoms,  which  are  then  the  true  gemmules.     Tliis 
process  may  be  repeated  ad  injiaitiuii^  unless  we  get  to 
true  organic  atoms,  the  true  gemmules,  whatever  they  may 
be,  and  they  necessarily  will  be  incapable  of  any  process  of 
spontaneous  fission.      It    is   remarkable  that  Mr.   Darwin 
brings  forward  in  support  of  gemmule  fission,  the  observa- 
tion that  "Thuret  has  seen  the  zoospore  of  an  alga  divide 
itself,  and  both  halves  germinate."     Yet  on  the  hypothesis 
of  Pangenesis,  the  zoospore  of  an  alga  must  contain  gem- 
mules from  all  the  cells  of  tlie  parent  algic,  and  from  all  tlie 
parts  of  all  their  less  remote  ancestors  in  all  their  stages  of 
existence.      Wliat  wonder  then  that  such   an   excessively 
complex  body  should  divide  and  nuiltiply;  and  wliat  parity 
is  there  between  such  a  body  and  a  gemmule  ?     A  steam- 
engine   and  a  steel-filing  might  equally  well  be  com2:)ared 
together. 

Prof.   Delpino  makes  a  further   objection   which,  how- 

8  Forlnigfdly  Review^  New  Series,  vol.  iii.,  April,  1868,  p.  508. 


X.]  PANGENESIS.  231 

ever,  will  only  be  of  weight   in  the  eyes  of  Vitalists.     He 
says,'  Pangenesis   is  not   to   be  received  because  "  it  leads 
directly  to  the   negation   of  a  specific  vital    principle,  coor- 
dinating and  regulating  all  the  movements,  acts,  and  func- 
tions of  the   individuals   in  wdiicli  it  is   incarnated.       For 
Pangenesis  of  the  individual  is  a  term  without  n)eaning. 
If,   in   contemplating  an  animal   of  high  organization,  we 
regard  it  purely  as  an  aggregation  of  developed  gcmmules, 
although  these  gcmmules  have  been  evolved  successively 
one  after   the  other,  and    one  within   the  other,   notwith- 
standing the}"  elude  the  conception  of  the  real  and  true 
m dividual,  these   problematical    and    invisible  gcmmules 
must  be  regarded  as  so  many  individuals.     Now,  that  real, 
true,  living   individuals  exist   in  Nature,  is  a  truth  which  is 
persistently  attested  to  us  by  our  consciousness.     But  how, 
then,   can  we   explain   that  a  great  quantity  of  dissimilar 
elements,  like  the  atoms  of  matter,  can  unite  to  form  those 
perfect  unities  which  we  call  individuals,  if  we  do  not  sup- 
pose the  existence  of  a  specific    principle,  proper  to  the 
individual    but    foreign    to   the    component  atoms,   which 
aggregates  these  said  atoms,  groups  themr  into  molecules, 
and  then  moulds   the  molecules  into  cells,  the  cells  into 
tissues,  the  tissues  into  organs,  and  the  organs  into  appa- 
ratus ?  " 

"  But,  it  may  be  urged  in  opposition  by  the  Pangene- 
sists,  your  vital  principle  is  an  unknown  and  irresolute  x. 
This  is  true ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  let  us  see  whether 
Pangenesis  produces  a  clearer  formula,  and  one  free  from 
unknown  elements.  The  existence  of  the  gcmmules  is  a 
first  unknown  element ;  the  propagative  aHTmity  of  the  gem- 
mules  is  a  second  ;  their  germinative  afiTmity  is  a  third  ;  their 
multiplication  by  fission  is  a  fourth — and  what  an  unknown 
element ! " 

"Thus,  in  Pangenesis,  every  thing  proceeds  by  force  of 

»  Scicrd'ijic  Opinion,  of  October  13,  18G9,  p.  408. 


232  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

unknown  elements,  and  we  may  ask  whether  it  is  more 
logical  to  prefer  a  system  which  assumes  a  multitude  of 
unknown  elements  to  a  system  which  assumes  only  a  single 
one  ?  " 

i 

Mr.  Darwin  appears,  by  "  Natural  Selection,"  to  destroy 
the  reality  of  species,  and  by  Pangenesis  that  of  the  indi- 
vidual.    Mr.  Lewes  observes'"  of  the  indivichial  that  "this 
whole  is  only  a  subjective  conception  which  summarizes  the 
parts,  and  that  in  point  of  fact  it  is  the  parts  which  are  re- 
produced."    But  the  parts  are  also,  from  the  same  point  of 
view,  merely  subjective  until  we  come  to  the  absolute  or- 
ganic atoms.     These  atoms,  on   the  other  hand,  are  utterly 
invisible,  intangible ;  indeed,  in  the  words  of  JNIr.  Danvin, 
inconceivable.     Thus,  then,  it  results  from  the  theories  in 
question,  that  the  organic  world  is  reduced  to  utter  imreal- 
ity  as  regards  all   that  can   be   jierceived  by  the  senses  or 
distinctly  imagined  by   the  mind ;   while   the   only  reality 
consists  of  the  invisible,  the  insensible,   the   inconceivable. 
In  other  words,  nothing  is  known   tliat  really  is,  and  only 
the  non-existent  can  be  known.     A  somewhat  paradoxical 
outcome  of  tlie  speculations  of  those  who   profess  to  rely 
exclusively  on  the  testimony  of  sense.     "  I^es  extremes  se 
touche?it"  and  extreme   sensationalism  shakes  hands  with 
the  "  das  seyn  ist  das  nichts  "  of  Hegel. 

Altogether  the  hypothesis  of  Pangenesis  seems  to  be 
little,  if  at  all,  superior  to  anterior  hypotheses  of  a  more  or 
less  similar  nature. 

Apart  from  the  atoms  of  Democritus,  and  apart  also 
from  the  speculations  of  mediieval  writers,  the  molecules  of 
Bonnet  and  of  BufTon  almost  anticipated  the  hypothesis  of 
Pangenesis.     According  to  the  last-named  author,'*  organic 

'°  Fortnightly  Review]  New  Series,  vol.  iii.,  April,  18G8,  p.  509. 

''  "llistoire  Naturelle,  geii6rale  et  paiticuliere,"  tome  ii.,  17-19,  p. 
327.  "  Ces  liqueurs  suiuiuales  sout  toutes  lieux  uu  extiait  de  toutes  lea 
parties  du  corps,"  etc. 


X.]  PANGENESIS.  233 

particles  from  every  part  of  the  body  assemble  in  the  sex- 
ual secretions,  and  by  their  union  build  up  the  embryo, 
each  particle  taking  its  due  place,  and  occupying  in  the  ofT- 
sj)ring  a  simihir  position  to  that  which  it  occupied  in  the 
parents.  In  1849,  Prof.  Owen,  in  his  treatise  on  "  Par- 
tlienogetiesis,"  put  forward  another  conception.  According 
to  this,  the  cells  resulting  from  the  subdivision  of  the  germ- 
cell  preserve  their  developmental  force,  unless  employed  in 
building  up  dcnnite  organic  structures.  In  certain  crea- 
tures, and  in  certain  parts  of  other  creatures,  germ-cells  un- 
used are  stored  up,  and  by  their  agency  lost  limbs  and  other 
mutilations  are  repaired.  Such  unused  })roducts  of  the 
germ-c(?ll  are  also  su])posed  to  become  located  in  the  gen- 
erative products. 

According  to  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer,  in  his  "  Principles  of 
Biology,"  each  living  organism  consists  of  certain  so-called 
"physiological  units."  Each  of  these  units  has  an  iiuiate 
power  and  capacity,  by  which  it  tends  to  build  up  and  re- 
produce the  entire  organism  of  which  it  forms  a  part,  unless 
in  the  mean  time  its  force  is  exhausted  by  its  taking  part  in 
the  production  of  some  distinct  and  definite  tissue — a  con- 
dition somewhat  similar  to  that  conceived  by  Prof.  Owen. 

Now,  at  first  sight,  Mr.  Darwin's  atomic  theory  appears 
to  be  more  simple  than  any  of  the  others.  It  has  been  ob- 
jected that  while  Mr.  Spencer's  theory  requires  the  assump- 
tion of  an  innate  power  and  tendency  in  each  physiological 
unit,  Mr.  Darwin's,  on  the  other  hand,  requires  nothing  of 
the  kind,  but  explains  the  evolution  of  each  individual  by 
purely  mechanical  conceptions.  In  fact,  however,  it  is  not 
so.  Each  gemmule,  according  to  ]\Ir.  Darwin,  is  really  the 
seat  of  powers,  elective  affinities,  and  special  tendencies,  as 
marked  and  mysterious  as  those  possessed  by  the  physiologi- 
cal unit  of  Mr.  Spencer,  with  the  single  exception  that  the 
former  has  no  tendency  to  build  up  the  whole  living,  com- 
plex organism  of  which  it  forms  a  part.     Some  may  think 


234  I'nii   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [CiiAr. 

this  an  important  distinction,  but  it  can  liardly  be  so,  for 
Mr.  Darwin  considers  tliat  his  genimule  has  tlie  innate 
power  and  tendency  to  build  up  and  transform  itself  into 
the  whole  living,  complex  cell  of  which  it  forms  a  part;  and 
the  one  tendency  is,  in  princij)le,  fully  as  dillicult  to  under- 
stand, fully  as  mysterious,  as  is  the  other.  The  diflerence 
is  but  one  of  degree,  not  of  kind.  Moreover,  the  one  mys- 
tery in  the  case  of  the  "  physiological  unit "  explains  all, 
while  with  regard  to  the  gemmule,  as  we  have  seen,  it 
has  to  be  supplemented  by  other  powers  and  tendencies, 
each  distinct,  and  each  in  itself  inexplicable  and  profoundly 
mysterious. 

Tiiat  there  should  be  physiological  imits  possessed  of 
the  power  attributed  to  them,  harmonizes  with  what  has 
recently  been  put  forward  by  Dr.  II.  Charlton  Bastian  ;  who 
maintains  that  imder  fit  conditions  the  simjilest  organisms 
develop  themselves  into  relatively  large  and  comjilex  ones. 
This  is  not  supposed  by  him  to  be  due  to  any  inheritance 
of  ancestral  genmiules,  but  to  direct  growth  and  transforma- 
tion of  the  most  minute  and  the  simplest  organisms,  which 
themselves,  by  all  reason  and  analogy,  owe  tiieir  existence 
to  immediate  transformation  from  the  inorganic  world. 

Thus,  then,  there  are  grave  difficulties  in  the  way  of  the 
reception  of  the  hypothesis  of  Pangenesis,  which,  moreover, 
if  established,  would  leave  the  cvohiliou  of  individual  or- 
ganisms, when  thoroughly  analyz(Hl,  little  if  at  all  less  mys- 
terious or  really  explicable  than  it  is  at  present. 

As  was  said  at  the  beginning  of  this  chapter,  "  Pangen- 
esis "  and  "Natural  Selection"  are  quite  sej)arable  and 
distinct  hypotheses.  The  fall  of  one  of  these  by  no  means 
necessarily  includes  that  of  the  other.  Nevertheless,  Mr. 
Darwin  has  associated  them  closely  together,  and,  there- 
fore, the  refutation  of  Pangenesis  may  render  it  advisable 
for  those  who  have  hitherto  accepted  "  Natural  Selection  " 
to  reconsider  that  theory. 


XI.]  SPECIFIC   GENESIS, 


235 


CIIArTER   XL 

SrECIFIC     GENESIS. 

Review  of  the  Stiitementfl  and  Arpuinents  of  Preceding  Clinpters.— Ciinnilntivo  Arpn- 
ment  npalnst  Predonilnnnt  Action  of  "NntiirnI  Pelectlrn."— Whether  nny  tlilnp 
positive  fts  well  ns  negative  can  ho  enuneiated.— Constancy  of  I^wa  of  Nature  does 
not  necessarily  imply  Constancy  of  Speeiflo  Evolution.— Posslhln  Kxccptionni  PU- 
Mlity  of  Kxifltlnff  Epoch.— rroimhillty  that  nn  Internal  Cnnso  of  CImnjfo  exists.— 
Innate  Powers  must  bo  eonceive<l  as  existinf^  somewhere  or  other. — Pymhollsm  of 
Molecular  Action  under  Yibmtinp  Impulses.— Prof  Owen's  Statement. — .Statement 
of  tho  Autlior'B  View.— It  nvoids  the  Difllculties  wldch  oppo.so  "Nntunil  Pelec- 
tlon."— It  harmonizes  Apparently  Conflicting  Conceptions. — Summary  and  Con- 
clusion. 

IlAvirTG  now  Rovorally  reviewed  the  jirineipal  biolofrical 
facts  wliicli  bear  upon  specific  manifestation,  it  remains  to 
sum  up  the  results,  and  to  endeavor  to  ascertain  what,  if 
any  thing",  can  be  said  positively^  as  well  as  negatively,  on 
this  deeply  interesting'  question. 

In  the  preceding  chapters  it  has  been  contended,  in  the 
first  place,  that  no  mere  survival  of  the  fittest  accidental 
and  minute  variations  can  account  for  the  incipient  stages 
of  useful  structures,  such  as,  e.  g.,  the  heads  of  flat-fislics, 
the  baleen  of  whales,  vertebrate  limbs,  the  laryngeal  struct- 
ures of  the  new-born  kangaroo,  the  pedicellarino  of  Ecliin- 
oderms,  or  for  many  of  the  facts  of  mimicry,  and  especially 
those  last  touches  of  mimetic  perfection,  where  an  insect 
not  only  mimics  a  leaf,  but  one  worm-eaten  and  attacked 
by  fungi. 

Also,  that  structures  like  the  hood  of  the  cobra  and  the 
rattle  of  tho  rattlesnake  seem  to  require  another  explana- 
tion. 


236  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Ch-p. 

Again,  it  has  been  contended  that  instances  of  color,  as 
in  some  apes ;  of  beauty,  as  in  some  shell-fish  ;  and  of  util- 
ity, as  in  many  orchids,  are  examples  of  conditions  which 
are  quite  beyond  the  power  of  Natural  Selection  to  origi- 
nate and  develop. 

Next,  the  peculiar  mode  of  origin  of  the  eye  (by  the 
simultaneous  and  concurrent  inodilication  of  distinct  })arts), 
with  tlie  wonderful  relinement  of  the  liuman  ear  and  voice, 
has  been  insisted  on ;  as  also,  that  the  importance  of  all 
these  facts  is  intensified  through  the  necessity  (admitted 
by  Mr.  Darwin)  that  many  individuals  should  be  similarly 
and  simultaneously  modified  in  order  that  sliglitly  fav^ora- 
ble  variations  may  hold  their  own  in  the  struggle  for  life, 
asrainst  the  overwhelmin<i:  force  and  influence  of  mere 
number. 

Again,  we    have  considered,  in  the  third  chapter,  the 
great   improbability   that   from   minute  variations  in  all  di- 
rections   alone  and  unaided,  save    by  the  survival   of  the 
fittest,  closely-similar  structures  should  independently  arise; 
though,  on  a  non-Darwinian  evolutionary  hypothesis,  their 
development  might  be  expected  a  priori.     We  have  seen, 
however,   that   there   ure  many    instances  of  wonderfully 
close  similarity  which  are  not  due  to  genetic  affinity ;  the 
most  notable    instance,  perhaps,   being  that  brought   for- 
ward by  Mr.  Murphy,  namely,  the  appearance  of  the  same 
eye-structure   in   the  vertebrate  and    molluscous  sub-king- 
doms.    A  curious  resemblance,  though  less  in  degree,  has 
also  been   seen  to   exist  between  the  auditory  organs   of 
fishes  and  of  Cephalopods.     Remarkable    similarities    be- 
tween certain  placental  and  im})lacental  mammals,  between 
the  bird's-head   processes   of  Polyzoa  and  the  pedicellariaj 
ef  Echinoderms,  between  Ichthyosuuria  and  Cctacea,  with 
very    many    other    similar    coincidences,    have    also     been 
pointed  out. 

Evidence  has  also  been  brought  forward  to  show  that 


XI.]  SPECIFIC   GENESIS.  237 

similarly  is  sometimes  directly  indueecl  by  very  obscure 
conditions,  at  present  quite  inexplicable,  e.  g.,  by  causes 
immediately  connected  with  geographical  distribution;  as 
in  tlie  loss  of  the  tail  in  certain  forms  of  Lepidoptera  and 
in  simultaneous  modifications  of  color  in  others,  and  in  the 
diicct  modification  of  young  English  oysters,  when  trans- 
ported to  the  shore  of  the  Mediterranean. 

Again,  it  has  been  asserted  that  certain  groups  of  or- 
ganic forms  seem  to  have  an  innate  tendency  to  remark- 
able devclojmicnts  of  some  particular  kind,  as  beauty  and 
singularity  of  plumage  in  the  group  of  birds  of  paradise. 

It  has  also  been  contended  that  there  is  something  to 
be  said  in  favor  of  sudden,  as  opposed  to  exceedingly 
minute  and  gradual  modifications,  even  if  the  latter  are  not 
fortuitous.  Cases  were  brought  forward  in  Chaj)ter  IV., 
such  as  the  bivalve  just  mentioned,  twenty-seven  kinds  of 
American  trees  simultaneously  and  similarly  modified,  also 
the  independent  jiroduction  of  pony  breeds,  and  the  case 
of  the  English  greyhounds  in  Mexico,  the  ofTspring  of 
which  produced  directly  acclimated  progeny.  Besides 
these,  the  case  of  the  Normandy  pigs,  of  Dixtxira  tatula^ 
and  also  of  the  black-shouldered  j)eacock,  have  been  sjwken 
of.  The  teeth  of  the  lai)yrinth()don,  the  hand  of  the  potto, 
the  whalebone  of  whales,  the  wings  of  birds,  the  climbing 
tendrils  of  some  plants,  etc.,  have  also  been  adduced  as 
instances  of  structures,  the  origin  and  production  of  which 
are  prol)ably  due  rather  to  considerable  modifications  than 
to  minute  increments. 

It  has  also  been  shown  that  certain  forms  which  were 
once;  supposed  to  be  especially  transitional  and  intermedi- 
ate (as,  e.  g.,  the  aye-aye)  are  really  by  no  means  so  ;  while 
the  general  rule,  that  the  progress  of  forms  has  been  "from 
the  more  general  to  the  more  special,"  has  been  shown  to 
present  remarkable  exceptions,  as,  e.  g.,  Macrauchenia,  tho 
Glyptodon,  and  the  sabre-toothed  tiger  (Maclmirodus). 


238  THE  GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Ciup. 

Next,  as  to  specific  stability,  it  lias  been  seen  that  there 
may  be  a  certain  limit  to  normal  variability,  and  that  if 
changes  take  place  they  may  be  expected  a  priori  to  be 
marked  and  considerable  ones,  from  the  facts  of  the  inor- 
ganic world,  and  perhaps  also  of  the  lowest  forms  of  the 
organic  world.  It  has  also  been  seen  that  with  regard  to 
minute  spontaneous  variations  in  races,  there  is  a  rapidly- 
increasing  dilliculty  in  intensifying  them,  in  any  one  di- 
rection, by  ever  such  careful  breeding.  Moreover,  it  has 
appeared  that  ditierent  species  show  a  tendencj'  to  varia- 
bility in  special  directions,  and  probably  in  different  de- 
grees, and  that  at  any  rate  JNIr.  Darwin  himself  concedes 
the  existence  of  an  internal  barrier  to  change  when  he 
credits  the  goose  with  "  a  singularly  inflexible  organiza- 
tion ;  "  also,  that  he  admits  the  presence  of  an  internal  pro- 
clivity to  change  when  he  speaks  of  "  a  whole  organization 
seeming  to  have  become  plastic,  and  tending  to  depart 
from  the  parental  type." 

We  have  seen  also  that  a  marked  tendency  to  reversion 
does  exist,  inasmuch  as  it  sometimes  takes  })lace  in  a 
striking  manner,  as  exemplified  in  the  white  silk  fowl  in 
England,  in  spite  o/*  careful  selection  in  breeding. 

Again,  we  have  seen  that  a  tendency  exists  in  nature 
to  eliminate  hybrid  races,  by  whatever  means  that  elimi- 
nation is  effected,  while  no  similar  tendency  bars  the  way 
to  an  indefinite  blending  of  varieties.  This  has  also  been 
enforced  by  statements  as  to  the  prepotency  of  certain  j:)ol- 
len  of  identical  species,  but  of  distinct  races. 

To  all  the  preceding  considerations  have  been  added 
others  derived  from  the  relations  of  species  to  past  time. 
It  has  been  contended  that  we  have  as  yet  no  evidence 
of  minutely  intermediate  forms  connecting  iniinterruptedly 
together  undoubtedly  distinct  species.  That  while  even 
"  horse  ancestry  "  fails  to  supply  such  a  desideratum,  in  very 
strongly-marked  and  exce^Dtional  kinds  (such  as  the  Ichthy- 


XI.]  SPJiOIFIC  GENESIS.  239 

osauria,  Cliclonia,  and  Atioura),  the  absence  of  links  is 
very  important  and  significant.  For  if  every  species,  with- 
ont  exception,  has  arisen  by  minute  modifications,  it  seems 
incredible  that  a  small  percentage  of  such  transitional  forms 
sliould  not  have  been  preserved.  Tliis,  of  course,  is  espe- 
cially the  case  as  regards  the  marine  Ichthyosanria  and  Ple- 
siosauria,  of  which  such  numbers  of  remains  have  been  dis- 
covered. 

Sir  William  Thomson's  great  authority  has  been  seen  to 
oppose  itself  to  "  Natural  Selection,"  by  limiting,  on  astro- 
nomical and  physical  grounds,  the  duration  of  life  on  this 
planet  to  about  one  hundred  million  years.  Tliis  period,  it 
has  been  contended,  is  not  nearly  enough,  on  the  one  hand, 
for  the  evolution  of  all  organic  forms  by  the  exclusive  action 
of  mere  minute,  fortuitous  variations ;  on  the  other  hand, 
for  the  deposition  of  all  the  strata  which  must  have  been 
deposited,  if  minute  fortuitous  variation  was  the  manner 
of  successive  specific  manifestation. 

Again,  the  geographical  distribution  of  existing  animals 
has  been  seen  to  present  difilculties  which,  though  not 
tlicmselves  insurmountable,  yet  have  a  certain  weight  when 
taken  in  conjunction  with  all  tlie  other  objections. 

The  facts  of  homology,  serial,  bilateral,  and  vertical,  have 
also  been  passed  in  review.  Such  facts,  it  has  been  con- 
tended, are  not  explicable  without  admitting  the  action  of 
what  may  most  conveniently  be  spoken  of  as  an  internal 
power,  the  existence  of  which  is  supported  by  facts  not  only 
of  comparative  anatomy  but  of  teratology  and  pathology 
also.  "  Natural  Selection  "  also  has  been  shown  to  be  im- 
potent to  explain  these  phenomena,  while  the  existence  of 
such  an  internal  power  of  homologous  evolution  diminishes 
the  ajy^'iori  improbability  of  an  analogous  law  of  specific 
origination. 

All  these  various  considerations  have  been  supplemented 
by  an  endeavor  to  show  the  utter  inadequacy  of  Mr.  Dar- 


240  THE  GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

win's  theory  willi  regard  to  the  higher  psychical  plienomena 
of  man  (especially  the  evolution  of  moral  conceptions),  and 
■with  regard  to  the  evolution  of  individual  organisms  by 
the  action  of  Pangenesis.  And  it  was  implied  that  if  Mr. 
Darwin's  latter  hypothesis  can  be  shown  to  be  untenable, 
an  antecedent  doubt  is  thus  thrown  upon  his  other  concep- 
tion, namely,  the  theory  of  "Natural  Selection." 

A  cunuilative  argument  thus  arises  against  the  preva- 
lent action  of  "Natural  Selection,"  which,  to  the  mind  of 
the  author,  is  conclusive.  As  before  observed,  he  was  not 
originally  disi)osed  to  reject  Mr.  Darwin's  fascinating  theory. 
ll(nterated  endeavors  to  solve  its  dilliculties  have,  however, 
had  the  effect  of  convincing  him  that  tliat  theory  as  the  one 
or  as  the  leading  explanation  of  tlie  successive  evolution 
and  manifestation  of  specific  forms  is  untenable.  At  tlie 
same  time  he  admits  fully  that  "Natural  Selection"  acts 
and  must  act,  and  that  it  plays  in  the  organic  world  a  cer- 
tain though  a  secondary  and  subordinate  })art. 

The  one  modus  operandi  yet  suggested  having  been 
found  insufhcient,  the  question  arises.  Can  anotiu^r  be  substi- 
tuted in  its  place?  If  not,  can  any  thing  that  is  positive, 
and  if  any  thing,  what,  be  said  as  to  the  question  of  specific 
origination  ? 

Now,  in  the  first  place,  it  is  of  course  axiomatic  that  the 
laws  which  conditioned  the  evolution  of  extinct  and  of  ex- 
isting species  are  of  as  much  eflicacy  at  this  moment  as  at 
any  preceding  period,  that  they  te)ul  to  the  manifestation 
of  new  forms  as  much  now  as  ever  before.  It  by  no  means 
necessarily  follows,  however,  that  this  tendency  is  actually 
being  carried  into  effect,  and  that  new  species  of  the  higher 
animals  and  plants  are  actually  now  produced.  They  may 
be  so  or  they  may  not,  according  as  existing  circumstances 
favor,  or  conflict  with,  the  action  of  tliose  laws.  It  is 
possible  that  lowly-organized  creatures  may  be  contin- 
ually evolved  at  the  present  day,  the  requisite  conditions 


XI.]  SPECIFIC  GENESIS.  241 

heiufr  more  or  less  easily  supplied.  There  is,  however,  no 
siinihir  evidence  at  present  as  to  higher  forms;  while,  as 
we  have  seen  in  Chapter  VII.,  there  are  a  jyriori  con- 
siderations which  militate  against  their  being  similarly 
evolved. 

The  presence  of  wild  varieties  and  the  diflTiculty  which 
often  exists  in  the  determination  of  species  are  sometimes 
adduced  as  arguments  that  high  fonns  are  now  in  process 
of  evolution.  These  facts,  however,  do  not  necessarily 
prove  more  than  that  some  species  possess  a  greater  varia- 
bility than  others,  and  (what  is  indeed  unquestionable)  that 
species  have  oHenbeen  unduly  midtiplied  by  geologists  and 
botanists.  It  may  be,  for  example,  that  Wagner  was  right, 
and  that  all  the  American  monkeys  of  the  genus  Cebus  may 
be  reduced  to  a  single  species  or  to  two. 

With  regard  to  the  lower  organisms,  and  supposing 
views  recently  advanced  to  become  fully  established,  there 
is  no  reason  to  think  that  the  forms  said  to  be  evolved  were 
new  species,  but  rather  reappearances  of  definite  kinds 
which  had  appeared  before  and  will  appear  again  under  the 
same  conditions.  In  the  same  way,  with  higher  forms  simi- 
lar conditions  must  educe  similar  results,  but  here  practically 
similar  conditions  can  rarely  obtain  because  of  the  large  part 
which  "  descent  "  and  "  inheritance  "  always  play  in  such 
highly-organized  forms. 

Still  it  is  conceivable  that  different  combinations  at 
different  times  may  have  occasionally  the  same  outcome,  just 
as  the  multiplications  of  different  numbers  may  have  sever- 
ally the  same  result. 

There  are  reasons,  however,  for  thinking  it  possible  that 
the  human  race  is  a  witness  of  an  exceptionally  unchanging 
and  stable  condition  of  things,  if  the  calculations  of  Mr.  Croll 
are  valid  as  to  how  far  variations  in  the  eccentricity  in  the 
earth's  orbit  together  with  the  precession  of  the  equinoxes 
have  produced  changes  in  climate.  Mr.  Wallace  has  pointed 
11 


242  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

out  *  that  the  last  60,000  years  having  been  exceptionally 
unchanging  as  regards  these  conditions,  specific  evolution 
may  have  been  exceptionally  rare.  It  becomes,  then,  pos- 
sible to  suppose  that  for  a  similar  period  stinuili  to  change  in 
the  manifestation  of  animal  forms  may  have  been  exception- 
ally few  and  feeble — that  is,  if  the  conditions  of  the  earth's 
orbit  have  been  as  exceptional  as  stated.  However,  even  if 
new  species  are  actually  now  being  evolved  as  actively  as 
ever,  or  if  they  have  been  so  quite  recently,  no  conllict 
thence  necessarily  arises  with  the  view  here  advocated. 
For  it  by  no  means  follows  that  if  some  examples  of  new 
species  have  recently  been  suddenly  produced  from  individ- 
uals of  antecedent  species,  we  ought  to  be  able  to  put  our 
fingers  on  such  cases ;  as  Mr.  Murphy  well  observes  ^  in  a 
passage  before  quoted,  "  If  a  species  were  to  come  suddenly 
into  being  in  the  wild  state,  as  the  Ancon  sheep  did  under 
domestication,  how  could  we  ascertain  the  fact  ?  If  the 
first  of  a  newly-born  species  were  found,  the  fact  of  its  dis- 
covery would  tell  nothing  about  its  origin.  Naturalists 
would  register  it  as  a  very  rare  species,  having  been  only 
once  met  with,  but  they  would  have  no  means  of  knowing 
whether  it  were  the  first  or  last  of  its  race." 

But  are  there  any  grounds  for  thinking  that  in  the  gen- 
esis of  species  an  internal  force  or  tendency  interferes,  co- 
operates with,  and  controls  the  action  of  external  con- 
ditions ? 

It  is  here  contended  that  there  are  such  grounds,  and 
that  though  inheritance,  reversion,  atavism.  Natural  Selec- 
tion, etc.,  play  a  part  not  unimportant,  yet  that  such  an 

*  See  Nature^  March  3,  18Y0,  p.  454.  Mr,  Wallace  says  (referring  to 
Mr.  CroU's  paper  in  the  Phil.  Mag.\  "As  we  are  now,  and  have  been  for 
60,000  years,  in  a  period  of  low  eccentricity,  the  rate  of  c?ui>n/e  of  species 
during  that  time  may  be  no  measure  of  the  rate  that  has  generally  obtained 
in  past  geological  epochs^ 

2  "  Habit  and  Intelligence,"  vol.  i.,  p.  344. 


XI.]  SPECIFIC  GENESIS.  243 

internal  power  is  a  great,  perhaps  the  main,  determining 
agent. 

It  will,  however,  be  replied  that  such  an  entity  is  no 
vera  caitsa  /  that  if  the  conception  is  accepted,  it  is  no  real 
explanation ;  and  that  it  is  merely  a  roundabout  way  of 
saying  that  the  facts  are  as  they  are,  while  the  cause  re- 
mains unknown.  To  this  it  may  be  rejoined  that  for  all 
who  believ  e  in  the  existence  of  the  abstraction  "  force  "  at 
all,  otlier  than  will,  this  conception  of  an  internal  force 
must  be  accepted  and  located  somewhere — cannot  be  elim- 
inated altogether;  and  that  therefore  it  may  as  reasona- 
bly be  accepted  in  this  mode  as  in  any  other. 

It  was  urged  at  the  end  of  the  third  chapter  that  it  is 
congruous  to  credit  mineral  species  with  an  internal  power 
or  force.  By  such  a  power  it  may  be  conceived  that  crys- 
tals not  only  assume  their  external  symmetry,  but  even 
repair  it  when  injured.  Ultimate  chemical  elements  must 
also  be  conceived  as  possessing  an  innate  tendency  to  form 
certain  unions,  and  to  cohere  in  stable  aggregations.  This 
was  considered  toward  the  end  of  Chapter  VIII. 

Turning  to  the  organic  world,  even  on  the  hypothesis 
of  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer  or  that  of  Mr.  Darwin,  it  is  imi)os- 
sible  to  escape  the  conception  of  innate  internal  forces. 
With  regard  to  the  physiological  units  of  the  former,  Mr. 
Spencer  himself,  as  we  have  seen,  distinctly  attributes  to 
them  "  an  ijuiate  tendency  "  to  evolve  the  parent-form  from 
which  they  sprang.  With  regard  to  the  gemmules  of  Mr. 
Darwin,  we  have  seen,  in  Chapter  X.,  with  how  many 
innate  powers,  tendencies,  and  capabilities,  they  must  each 
be  severally  endowed,  to  reproduce  their  kind,  to  evolve 
complex  organisms  or  cells,  to  exercise  germinative  affin- 
ity, etc. 

If  then  (as  was  before  said  at  the  end  of  Cliapter  VIII.) 
such  innate  powers  must  be  attributed  to  chemical  atoms, 
to  mineral  species,  to  gemmules,  and  to  physiological  units, 


244  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Cuap. 

it  is  only  reasonal)le  to  attribute  such  to  each  individual 
organism. 

The  conception  of  such  internal  and  latent  capabilities 
is  somewhat  like  that  of  Mr.  Galton,  before  mentioned,  ac- 
cording to  which  the  organic  world  consists  of  entities, 
each  of  which  is,  as  it  were,  a  spheroid  with  many  facets 
on  its  surface,  upon  one  of  which  it  reposes  in  stable  equi- 
librium. When  by  the  accumulated  action  of  incident 
forces  this  equilibrium  is  disturbed,  the  spheroid  is  sup- 
posed to  turn  over  until  it  settles  on  an  adjacent  facet  once 
more  in  stable  equilibrium. 

The  internal  tendency  of  an  organism  to  certain  consid- 
erable and  definite  changes  would  correspond  to  the  facets 
on  the  surface  of  the  spheroid. 

It  may  be  objected  that  we  have  no  knowledge  as  to 
how  terrestrial,  cosmical,  and  other  forces,  can  affect  organ- 
isms so  as  to  stimulate  and  evolve  these  latent,  merely  po- 
tential forms.  But  we  have  had  evidence  that  such  myste- 
rious agencies  do  affect  organisms  in  ways  as  yet  inexj)li- 
cable,  in  the  very  remarkable  ell'ects  of  geographical  condi- 
tions which  were  detailed  in  the  third  chapter. 

It  is  quite  conceivable  that  the  material  organic  world 
may  be  so  constituted  that  the  simultaneous  action  uj)on  it 
of  all  known  forces,  mechanical,  physical,  chemical,  mag- 
netic, terrestrial,  and  cosmical,  together  with  other  as  yet 
unknown  forces  which  probably  exist,  may  result  in  changes 
which  are  harmonious  and  symmetrical,  just  as  the  internal 
nature  of  vibrating  plates  causes  particles  of  sand  scattered 
over  them  to  assume  definite  and  symmetrical  figures  when 
made  to  oscillate  in  different  ways  by  the  bow  of  a  violin 
being  drawn  along  their  edges.  The  results  of  these  com- 
bined internal  powers  and  external  influences  might  be  rep- 
resented under  the  symbol  of  complex  series  of  vibrations 
(analogous  to  those  of  sound  or  light)  forming  a  most  com- 
plex harmony  or  a  display  of  most  varied  colors.     In  such 


XI.]  SPECIFIC   GENESIS.  245 

a  way  tlio  reparation  of  local  injuries  niiglit  l)e  symbolized 
as  a  filling  up  and  completion  of  an  interrupted  rhythm. 
Tlnis  also  monstrous  aberrations  from  typical  structure 
might  correspond  to  a  discord,  and  sterility  from  crossing 
be  compared  with  the  darkness  resulting  from  the  interfer- 
ence of  waves  of  light. 

Stich  symbolism  will  harmonize  witli  the  peculiar  repro- 
duction, before  mentioned,  of  heads  in  the  body  of  certain 
annelids,  with  the  facts  of  serial  homology,  as  well  as  those 
of  bilateral  and  vertical  symmetry.  Also,  as  the  atoms  of 
a  resonant  body  may  be  made  to  give  out  sound  by  the 
juxtaposition  of  a  \'ibrating  tuning-fork,  so  it  is  conceivable 
that  the  physiological  units  of  a  living  organism  may  be  so 
influenced  by  surrounding  conditions  (organic  and  other) 
that  the  accumulation  of  these  conditions  may  upset  the 
previous  rhythm  of  such  units,  producing  modifications  in 
them — a  fresh  chord  in  the  harmony  of  Nature — a  new 
species  I 

But  it  may  be  again  objected  that  to  say  that  species 
arise  by  the  help  of  an  innate  power  possessed  by  organ- 
isms is  no  explanation,  but  is  a  reproduction  of  the  ab- 
surdity, Vojnum  endormit  parcequHlaune  vertu  soporifique. 
It  is  contended,  however,  that  this  objection  does  not  ap- 
ply, even  if  it  be  conceded  that  there  is  that  force  in  Mo- 
licre's  ridicule  which  is  generally  attributed  to  it.'  Much, 
however,  might  be  said  in  opposition  to  more  than  one  of 
that  brilliant  dramatist's  smart  philosophical  epigrams,  just 
as  to  the  theological  ones  of  Voltaire,  or  to  the  biological 
one  of  that  other   Frenchman  who  for  a  time  discredited 

'  If  nny  one  were  to  contend  that  beside  the  opium  there  existed  a 
real  distinct  objective  entity,  "  its  soporific  virtue,"  he  wordd  bo  open  to 
ridicule  indeed.  But  the  constitution  of  our  minds  is  such  that  we  can- 
not but  distinguish  ideally  a  thing  from  its  even  essential  attributes  and 
qualities.  The  joke  is  sufficiently  amusing,  however,  regarded  as  tho 
solemu  enunciation  of  a  mere  truism. 


24G  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPEtJiES.  [Chap. 

a  cranial  skeletal  theory  by  the  phrase  "  Vei  tebre  pen- 
sante."  * 

In  fact,  however,  it  is  a  real  explanation  of  how  a  man 
lives  to  say  that  he  lives  independently,  on  his  own  income, 
instead  of  being  supported  by  his  relatives  and  friends.  In 
the  same  way,  tliere  is  fully  as  real  a  distinction  between 
the  production  of  new  specific  manifestations  entirely  ah 
externOy  and  by  the  production  of  the  same  through  an  in- 
nate force  and  tendency,  the  determination  of  which  into 
action  is  occasioned  bv  external  circumstances. 

To  say  that  organisms  possess  this  innate  power,  and 
that  by  it  new  species  are  from  time  to  time  produced,  is 
by  no  means  a  mere  assertion  that  they  a?'e  i)roduced,  and 
in  an  unknown  mode.  It  is  the  negation  of  that  view  whicli 
deems  external  forces  alone  sufficient,  and  at  the  same  time 
the  assertion  of  something  positive,  to  be  arrived  at  by  the 
process  of  reductio  ad  absurdum. 

All  physical  explanations  result  ultimately  in  such  con- 
ceptions of  innate  power,  or  else  in  that  of  will-force.  The 
far-famed  explanation  of  the  celestial  motions  ends  in  the 
conception  that  every  particle  of  matter  has  the  innate 
power  of  attracting  every  other  particle  directly  as  the 
mass,  and  inversely  as  the  square  of  the  distance. 

We  are  logically  driven  to  this  positive  conception  if 
we  do  not  accept  the  view  that  there  is  no  force  but  voli- 
tion, and  that  all  j)henomena  whatever  are  the  immediate 
results  of  the  action  of  intelligent  and  self-conscious  will. 

We  have  seen  that  the  notion  of  sudden  changes — salta- 
tory actions  in  Nature — has  received  countenance  from 
Prof.  Huxley.*  We  must  conceive  that  these  jumps  are 
orderly,  and  according  to  law,  inasmuch  as  the  whole  cos- 

*  Noticed  by  Prof.  Owen  in  his  *'  Archetype,"  p.  76.  Recently  it 
has  been  attempted  to  discredit  Darwinism  in  France  by  speaking  of  it  as 
"  de  la  science  tnousseuse  /  " 

«  "  Lay  Sermons,"  p.  342. 


XI.]  SPECIFIC   GENESIS. 


247 


Jnos  is  sucli.  Such  orderly  evolution  harmonizes  with  a 
teleology  derived,  not  indeed  from  external  Nature  directly, 
but  from  the  mind  of  man.  On  this  point,  however,  more 
will  be  said  in  the  next  chapter.  But,  once  more,  if  new 
sjiecies  are  not  manifested  by  the  action  of  external  condi- 
tions upon  minute  indefinite  individual  dilTerenccs,  in  what 
precise  way  may  we  conceive  that  manifestation  to  have 
taken  place  ? 

Are  new  species  now  evolving,  as  they  have  been  from 
time  to  time  evolved  ?  If  so,  in  what  way  and  by  wiiat 
conceivable  means  ? 

In  the  first  jilace,  they  must  be  produced  by  natural  ac- 
tion in  preC'xisling  malerial,  or  by  supernal ural  action. 

For  reasons  to  be  given  in  the  next  chapter,  the  second 
hypothesis  need  not  be  considered. 

If,  then,  new  species  are  and  have  been  evolved  from 
preexisting  material,  must  that  material  have  been  organic 
or  inorganic? 

As  before  said,  additional  arguments  have  lately  been 
brought  forward  to  show  that  individual  organisms  do  arise 
from  a  basis  of  e?i-organic  material  only.  As,  however,  this 
at  the  most  ajipears  to  be  the  case,  if  at  all,  only  with  the 
lowest  and  most  minute  organisms  exclusively,  the  process 
cannot  be  observed,  though  it  may  perhaps  be  fairly  in- 
ferred. 

We  may  therefore,  if  for  no  other  reason,  dismiss  the 
notion  that  highly-organized  animals  and  plants  can  be  sud- 
denly or  gradually  built  up  by  any  combination  of  physical 
forces  and  natural  powers  acting  externally  and  internally 
upon  and  in  merely  inorganic  material  as  a  base. 

But  the  question  is.  How  have  the  highest  kinds  of  ani- 
mals and  plants  arisen  ?  It  seems  impossible  that  tiiey  can 
have  appeared  otherwise  than  by  the  agency  of  antecedent 
organisms  not  greatly  different  from  them. 

A  multitude  of  facts,  ever  increasing  in  number  and  ini- 


248  TnE   GENESIS   OF  SPECIES.  [Ciup. 

portance,  all  point  to  such  a  mode  of  specific  manifesta- 
tion. 

One  very  good  example  has  been  adduced  by  Prof. 
Flower  in  tlie  introductory  lecture  of  his  first  Hunteriuu 
Course.'  It  is  the  reduction  in  size,  to  a  greater  or  less 
degree,  of  the  second  and  tljird  digits  of  tiie  foot  in  Aus- 
tralian marsupials,  and  this,  in  sj)ite  of  tlie  very  dillerent 
form  and  function  of  the  foot  in  dillerent  groups  of  those 
animals. 

A  similarly  sigin'ficant  evidence  of  relationship  is  af- 
forded by  processes  of  the  zygomatic  region  of  the  skull  in 
certain  edentates  existing  and  extinct. 

Again,  the  relation  between  existing  and  recent  faunas 
of  the  dillerent  regions  of  the  world,  and  the  predominating 
(though  by  no  means  exclusive)  march  of  organization,  from 
the  more  general  to  the  more  special  point  in  the  same 
direction. 

Almost  all  the  facts  brought  forward  by  the  patient 
industry  of  Mr.  Darwin  in  support  of  his  theory  of  "Natu- 
ral Selection,"  are  of  course  available  as  evidence  in  favor  of 
the  agency  of  preexisting  and  similar  animals  in  specific 
evolution. 

Now  tlie  new  forms  must  be  produced  by  changes  tak- 
ing place  in  organisms  in,  after,  or  before  their  birth,  either 
in  their  embryonic,  or  toward  or  in  their  adult,  condition. 

Examples  of  strange  births  are  sufficiently  common,  and 
they  may  arise  either  from  direct  embryonic  modifications 
or  apparently  from  some  obscure  change  in  the  parental 
action.  To  the  former  category  belong  the  hosts  of  in- 
stances of  malformation  through  arrest  of  development,  and 
perhaps  generally  monstrosities  of  some  sort  are  the  result 
of  such  alFections  of  the  embryo.  To  the  second  category 
belong  all  ciises  of  hybridism,  of  cross-breed,  and  in  all  prob- 

'  Introductory  Lecture  of  February  14,  1870,  pp.  24-30,  Figs.  1-4. 
(Churchill  k  Sous.) 


XI.]  SPECIFIC   GENESIS.  249 

ability  the  now  variclics  and  forms,  such  as  the  memorable 
one  of  the  black-shouldered  peacock.  In  all  tliese  cases  we 
do  not  have  abortions  or  monstrosities,  but  more  or  less  har- 
monious forms,  often  of  great  functional  activity,  endowed 
with  marked  viability  and  generative  prepotency,  except  in 
the  case  of  hybrids,  when  we  often  find  even  a  more  marked 
generative  impotency. 

It  seems  probable  therefore  that  new  species  may  arise 
from  some  constitutional  affection  of  parental  forms — an 
affection  mainly,  if  not  exclusively,  of  their  generative  sys- 
tem. Mr.  Darwin  has  carefully  collected'  numerous  in- 
stances to  show  how  excessively  sensitive  to  various  influ- 
ences this  system  is.  lie  says:  *  "  Sterility  is  independent 
of  general  health,  and  is  often  accompanied  by  excess  of 
size,  or  great  luxuriance,"  and,  "  No  one  can  tell,  till  he  tries, 
whether  any  particular  animal  will  breed  under  confinement, 
or  any  exotic  plant  seed  freely  under  culture."  Again, 
"  When  a  new  character  arises,  whatever  its  nature  may  be, 
it  generally  tends  to  be  inherited,  at  least  in  a  temporary, 
and  sometimes  in  a  most  persistent  manner."'  Yet  the 
obscure  action  of  conditions  will  alter  characters  long  inher- 
ited, as  the  grandchildren  of  Aylesbury  ducks  removed  to  a 
distant  part  of  England,  completely  lost  their  early  habit  of 
incubation,  and  hatched  their  eggs  at  the  same  time  with 
the  common  ducks  of  the  same  place."  " 

Mr.  Darwin  quotes  Mr.  Bartlett  as  saying :  "  It  is  remark- 
able that  lions  breed  more  freely  in  travelling  collections 
than  in  the  zoological  gardens ;  probably  the  constant  ex- 
citement and  irritation  produced  by  moving  from  place  to 
place,  or  change  of  air,  may  have  considerable  influence  iu 
the  matter."  " 

'See  especially  "Animals  and  Plants  under  Domestication,"  vol.  ii., 
chap,  xviii.  »  "Origin  of  Species,"  5th  edit.,  pp.  323,  324. 

»  "Animals  and  Plants  under  Domestication,"  vol.  ii.,  p.  2. 
">  Ibid.,  p.  26.  "  Ibid.,  p.  161. 


250  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.    '  [Chap. 

Mr.  Darwin  also  says :  "  There  is  reason  to  believe  that 
insects  are  affected  by  confinement  like  the  higher  animals," 
and  he  gives  examples.'' 

Again,  he  gives  examples  of  change  of  plumage  in  the 
linnet,  bunting,  oriole,  and  other  birds,  and  of  the  tempo- 
rary modification  of  the  horns  of  a  male  deer  during  a 
voyage.'* 

Finally,  he  adds  that  these  changes  cannot  be  attributed 
to  loss  of  health  or  vigor,  "  when  we  reflect  how  healthy, 
long-lived,  and  vigorous  many  animals  are  under  captivity, 
such  as  parrots,  and  hawks  when  used  for  hawking,  chetahs 
when  used  for  hunting,  and  elephants.  The  reproductive 
organs  themselves  are  not  diseased ;  and  the  diseases  from 
which  animals  in  menageries  usually  perish,  are  not  those 
which  in  any  way  affect  their  fertility.  No  domestic  ani- 
mal is  more  subject  to  disease  than  the  sheep,  yet  it  is 
remarkably  prolific.  ...  It  would  appear  that  any  change 
in  the  habits  of  life,  whatever  these  habits  may  be,  if  great 
enough,  tends  to  affect  in  an  inexplicable  manner  the  })ow- 
ers  of  reproduction." 

Such,  then,  is  the  singular  sensitiveness  of  the  genera- 
tive system. 

As  to  the  means  by  which  that  system  is  affected,  we 
see  that  a  variety  of  conditions  affect  it ;  but  as  to  the 
modes  in  which  they  act  upon  it,  we  have  as  yet  little  if  any 
clew. 

We  have  also  seen  the  singular  effects  (in  tailed  Lepi- 
doptera,  etc.)  of  causes  connected  with  geographical  distri- 
bution, the  mode  of  action  of  which  is  as  yet{iuite  inexpli- 
cable; and  we  have  also  seen  the  innate  tendency  which 
there  appears  to  be  in  certain  groups  (birds  of  paradise,  etc.) 
to  develop  peculiarities  of  a  special  kind. 

It  is,  to  say  the  least,  probable  that  other  influences 
exist,  terrestrial   and  cosmical,  as  yet  unnoted.     The  grad- 

•'  "Animals  and  Plants  under  Domestication,"  vol.  ii.,  p.  157. 
» Ibid.,  p.  158. 


XI.]  SPECIFIC  GENESIS.  251 

ually  accumulntiiig  or  diversely  combining  actions  of  all 
these  on  liiglily-sensilive  structures,  Avliicli  arc  themselves 
possessed  of  internal  resj)onsive  powers  and  tendencies, 
may  well  result  in  occasional  repeated  productions  of  forms 
harmonious  and  vigorous,  and  differing  from  the  parental 
forms  in  proportion  to  the  result  of  the  combining  or  con- 
flictinn:  action  of  all  external  and  internal  influences. 

If,  in  the  past  history  of  this  })lanet,  more  causes  ever 
intervened,  or  intervened  more  energetically  tlian  at  pres- 
ent, we  miglit  a  priori  expect  a  richer  and  more  various 
evolution  of  forms  more  radically  differing  than  any  which 
could  be  produced  under  conditions  of  more  perfect  equi- 
librium. At  the  same  time,  if  it  be  true  that  the  last  few 
thousand  years  have  been  a  ])eriod  of  remarkable  and 
exceptional  uniformity  as  regards  this  planet's  astronomical 
relations,  there  are  then  some  grounds  for  thinking  that 
organic  evolution  may  have  been  exceptionally  depressed 
during  the  same  epoch. 

Now,  as  to  the  fact  that  sudden  changes  and  sudden 
developments  have  occurred,  and  as  to  the  probability  that 
such  changes  are  likely  to  occur,  evidence  was  given  in 
Chapter  IV. 

In  Chapter  V.  we  also  saw  that  minerals  become  modi- 
fied suddenly  and  considerably  by  the  action  of  incident 
forces — as,  e.  g.,  the  production  of  hexagonal  tabular  crys- 
tals of  carbonate  of  copper  by  sulphuric  acid,  and  of  long 
rectangular  i)risms  by  ammonia,  etc. 

We  have  thus  a  certain  antec(Hlent  j)robability  that  if 
changes  are  produced  in  specific  manifestation  through  inci- 
dent forces,  these  changes  will  be  sensible  and  considerable, 
not  minute  and  infinitesimal. 

Consequently,  it  is  probable  that  new  species  have 
appeared  from  time  to  time  with  comparative  suddenness, 
and  that  they  still  continue  so  to  arise  if  all  the  conditions 
necessary  for  specific  evolution  now  obtain. 


252  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Ciup. 

Tills  probability  will  be  incrcasccl  if  the  observations  of 
Dr.  I5astian  are  confirined  by  future  investigation.  Ao- 
conling  to  his  report,  when  the  requisite  conditions  were 
supplied,  the  transformations  which  appeared  to  take  place 
(from  very  low  to  higher  organisms)  were  sudden,  definite, 
and  comj)lete. 

Therefore,  if  this  is  so,  there  must  proba])ly  exist  in 
higher  forms  a  similar  tendency  to  sucli  change.  That 
tendency  may  indeed  be  long  suppressed,  and  ultimately 
modified  by  the  action  of  heredity — an  action  which  w(juld 
increase  in  force  with  the  increase  in  the  j)erfection  and 
complexity  of  the  organism  affected.  Still  we  might  expect 
that  such  changes  as  do  take  place  would  be  also  sudden, 
definite,  and  complete. 

Moreover,  as  the  same  causes  produce  the  same  efTects, 
several  individual  parent-forms  must  often  have  been  simi- 
larly and  simultaneously  affected.  That  they  should  be  so 
afTected — at  least  that  several  similarly-jnodified  individuals 
should  simultaneously  arise — has  been  seen  to  be  a  generally 
necessary  circumstance  for  the  permanent  duration  of  such 
new  modifications. 

It  is  also  conceivable  that  such  new  forms  may  be  en- 
dowed with  excessive  constitutional  strength  and  viability, 
and  with  generative  prepotency,  as  was  the  case  with  the 
black-shouldered  peacock  in  Sir  J.  Trevelyan's  flock.  This 
flock  was  entirely  composed  of  the  common  kind,  and  yet  the 
new  form  rapidly  developed  itself,  ^'to  the  extinction  of  the 
previoitsly-exlsting  breed?''  " 

Indeed,  the  notion  accepted  by  both  Mr.  l^arwin  and 
Mr.  Herbert  Spencer,  and  which  is  plainly  the  fact  (namely, 
that  changes  of  conditions  and  incident  forces,  within  limits, 
augment  the  viability  and  fertility  of  individuals),  harmon- 
izes well  with  the  suggested  possibility  as  to  an  augmented 
viability  and  prepotency  in  new  organic  forms  evolved  by 

**  "Auimald  and  Plants  under  Domestication,"  vol.  i.  p.  291. 


XI.]  SPECIFIC  GENESIS. 


253 


peculiar  consonlancous  actions  of  conditions  and  forces,  both 
external  and  internal. 

The  remnrkable  series  of  changes  noted  by  Dr.  Bastian 
were  certainly  not  produced  by  external  incident  forces  07\bj, 
but  by  these 'acting  on  a  peculiar  materia^  having  special 
properti(;s  and  powers.  Therefore,  the  changes  were  in- 
duced by  the  consentaneous  action  of  internal  and  external 
forces.**  In  the  same  uay,  then,  we  may  expect  changes  in 
higher  forms  to  be  evolved  by  similar  united  action  of  inter- 
nal and  external  forces. 

One  other  point  may  here  be  alluded  to.  When  the  re- 
markable way  in  which  structure  and  function  simultaneously 
change,  is  borne  in  mind  ;  when  those  numerous  instances 
in  wliich  Nature  has  supplied  similar  wants  by  similar  means, 
as  detailed  in  Cliapter  III.,  are  remembered  ;  when  also  all 
the  wonderful  contrivances  of  orchids,  of  mimicry,  and  the 
strange  complexity  of  certain  instinctive  actions  are  consid- 
ered— then  the  conviction  forces  itself  on  many  minds  that 
the  organic  world  is  the  expression  of  an  intelligence  of 
some  kind.  This  view  has  been  well  advocated  by  Mr. 
Joseph  John  Murphy,  in  his  recent  work  so  often  here  re- 
ferred to. 

This  intelligence,  however,  is  evidently  not  altogether 
such  as  ours,  or  else  has  other  ends  in  view  than  those  most 
obvious  to  us.  For  the  end  is  often  attained  in  singularly 
roundabout  ways,  or  with  a  prodigality  of  means  which 
seems  out  of  all  proportion  with  the  result :  not  with  the 
simple  action  directed  to  one  end  which  generally  marks 
human  activity. 

Organic  Nature  then  speaks  clearly  to  man}'^  minds  of  the 
action  of  an  intelligence  resulting,  on  the  whole  and  in  the 
main,  in  order,  harmony,  and  beauty,  yet  of  an  intelligence 
the  ways  of  which  are  not  such  as  ours. 

'*  Thonpli  hardly  necessary,  it  may  bo  well  to  remark  that  the  views 
here  advocated  in  no  way  depend  upon  the  truth  of  the  doctrine  of  Spon- 
taneous (icncration. 


254  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

This  view  of  evolution  harmonizes  well  with  theistic  con- 
ceptions ;  not,  of  course,  that  this  harmony  is  brought  for- 
ward as  an  argument  in  its  favor  generally,  but  it  will  have 
weight  with  those  who  are  convinced  that  Tlicism  rei)oses 
upon  solid  grounds  of  reason  as  the  rational  view  of  the  uni- 
verse. To  such  it  may  be  observed  that,  thus  conceived, 
the  Divine  action  has  that  slight  amount  of  resemblance  to, 
and  tliat  wide  amount  of  divergence  from,  what  human  action 
would  be,  which  might  be  expected  a  priori— might  be 
expected,  that  is,  from  a  Being  whose  nature  and  aims  are 
utterly  beyond  our  power  to  imagine,  however  faintly,  but 
whose  truth  and  goodness  are  the  fountain  and  source  of 
our  own  perceptions  of  such  qualities. 

The  view  of  evolution  maintained  in  this  work,  though 
arrived  at  in  complete  independence,  yet  seems  to  agree  in 
many  respects  with  the  views  advocated  by  Prof.  Owen 
in  the  last  volume  of  his  "  Anatomy  of  Vertebrates,"  under 
the  term  "  derivation."  He  says :  "  "  Derivation  liolds  that 
every  species  changes  in  time,  by  virtue  of  inherent  tenden- 
cies thereto.  *  Natural  Selection '  holds  that  no  such  change 
can  take  place  without  the  influence  of  altered  external 
circumstances."  *  Derivation '  sees  among  the  eflects  of  the 
innate  tendency  to  change  irrespective  of  altered  circum- 
stances, a  .^^^lifestation  of  creative  power  in  the  variety  and 
beauty  of  the  results ;  and,  in  the  ultimate  forthcoming  of 
a  being  susceptible  of  appreciating  such  beauty,  evidence 
of  the  preordaining  of  such  relation  of  power  to  the  appre- 
ciation. '  Natural  Selection '  acknowledges  that  if  ornament 
or  beauty,  in  itself,  should  be  a  purpose  in  creation,  it  would 
be  absoKitely  fatal  to  it  as  a  hypothesis." 

"  '  Natural  Selection '  sees  grandeur  in  the  view  of  life, 

'«  Vol.  iii.,  p.  808. 

''  Tliis  is  hardly  an  exact  representation  of  Mr.  Darwin's  view.  On 
his  theory,  if  a  Hivorable  variation  happens  to  arise  (the  external  ciicum- 
stunces  remaining  the  same),  it  will  yet  be  preserved. 


XI.]  SPECIFIC  GENESIS.  or.r. 


^vitll  its  several  powers,  having  been  originally  breathed  by 
the  Creator  into  a  few  forms  or  into  one.  *  Derivation'  sees 
therein  a  narrow  invocation  of  a  special  miracle  and  an  im- 
worthy  limitation  of  creative  power,  the  grandeur  of  which 
is  manifested  daily,  hourly,  in  calling  into  life  many  forms, 
byconversion  of  physical  and  chemical  into  vital  modes  of 
force,  under  as  many  diversified  conditions  of  the  requisite 
elements  to  be  so  combined." 

The  view  propounded  in  this  work  allows,  however,  a 
greater  and  more  important  part  to  the  share  of  external 
influences,  it  being  believed  by  the  author,  however,  that 
these  external  influences  efjually  with  the  internal  ones  arc 
the  results  of  one  harmonious  action  underlying  the  whole 
of  Nature,  organic  and  inorganic,  cosmical,  physical,  chemi- 
cal, terrestrial,  vital,  and  social. 

According  to  this  view,  an  internal  law  presides  over 
the  actions  of  every  part  of  every  individual,  and  of  every 
organism  as  a  unit,  and  of  the  entire  organic  world  as  a 
whole.  It  is  believed  that  this  conception  of  an  internal 
innate  force  will  ever  remain  necessary,  however  much  its 
subordinate  processes  and  actions  may  become  explicable : 

That  by  such  a  force,  from  time  to  time,  new  species  are 
manifested  by  ordinary  generation  just  as  T*avo  7iigripennis 
appeared  suddenly,  these  new  forms  not  being  monstrosities 
but  harmonious  self-consistent  wholes.  That  thus,  as  spe- 
cific distinctness  is  manifested  by  obscure  sexual  conditions, 
so  in  obscure  sexual  modifications  specific  distinctions  arise. 

That  these  "jumps"  are  considerable  in  comparison 
with  the  minute  variations  of  "  Natural  Selection  " — are  in 
fact  sensible  steps,  such  as  discriminate  species  from  spe- 
cies. 

Tliat  the  latent  tendency  which  exists  to  these  sudden 
evolutions  is  determined  to  action  by  the  stimulus  of  exter- 
nal conditions. 

That    "  Natural  Selection "    rigorously   destroys    mon- 


25G  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

strosities,  and  abortive  and  feeble  attempts  at  the  perform- 
ance of  the  evolutionary  process. 

That  "  Natural  Selection  "  removes  the  antecedent  spe- 
cies rapidly  when  the  new  one  evolved  is  more  in  harmony 
with  surrounding  conditions. 

That  "  Natural  Selection "  favors  and  develops  useful 
variations,  though  it  is  impotent  to  originate  them  or  to 
erect  tlie  physiological  barrier  which  seems  to  exist  between 
species. 

By  some  such  conception  as  this,  the  difTicuUies  here 
enumerated,  which  beset  the  theory  of  "  Natural  Selection  " 
piu-e  and  simple,  are  to  be  got  over. 

Thus,  for  example,  the  dilhculties  discussed  in  the  first 
chapter — namely,  those  as  to  the  origins  and  first  begin- 
nings of  certain  structures — are  completely  evaded. 

Again,  as  to  the  independent  origin  of  closely-similar 
structures,  such  as  the  eyes  of  the  Vertebrata  and  cuttle- 
fishes, the  difficulty  is  removed  if  we  may  adopt  the  concep- 
tion of  an  innate  force  similarly  directed  in  each  case,  and 
assisted  by  favorable  external  conditions. 

Specific  stability,  limitation  to  variability,  and  the  facts 
of  reversion,  all  harmonize  with  the  view  here  put  forward. 
Tlie  same  may  be  said  with  regard  to  the  significant  facts 
of  homology,  and  of  organic  symmetry  ;  and  our  consider- 
ation of  the  hypothesis  of  Pangenesis  in  Chapter  X.,  has 
seemed  to  result  in  a  view  as  to  innate  powers  which  accords 
well  with  what  is  here  advocated. 

The  evolutionary  hypothesis  here  advocated  also  serves 
to  explain  all  those  remarkable  facts  which  were  stated  in 
the  first  chapter  to  be  explicable  by  the  theory  of  Natural 
Selection,  namely,  the  relation  of  existing  to  recent  faunas 
and  floras ;  the  phenomena  of  homology  and  of  rudimentary 
structures ;  also  the  processes  gone  through  in  develop- 
ment ;  and  lastly,  the  wonderful  facts  of  mimicry. 

Finally,  the  view  adopted  is  the  synthesis  of  many  dis- 


XL]  SPECIFIC  GENESIS.  •  357 

tinct  and,  at  first  sight,  conflicting  conceptions,  cacli  of 
wliicli  contains  elements  of  truth,  and  all  of  which  it  ap- 
pears to  be  able  more  or  less  to  harmonize. 

Thus  it  has  been  seen  that  "Natural  Selection"  is  ac- 
cepted. It  acts  and  must  act,  though  alone  it  docs  not 
appear  capable  of  fulfilling  the  task  assigned  to  it  by  Mr. 
Darwin. 

Pangenesis  has  probably  also  much  truth  in  it,  and  has 
certainly  afforded  valuable  and  pregnant  suggestions,  but 
miaided  and  alone  it  seems  inadequate  to  explain  the  evo- 
lution of  the  individual  organism. 

Those  three  conceptions  of  the  organic  world  which 
may  be  spoken  of  as  the  teleological,  the  typical,  and  the 
transmutationist,  have  often  been  regarded  as  mutually  an- 
tagonistic and  conflicting. 

The  genesis  of  species  as  here  conceived,  however,  ac- 
cepts, locates,  and  harmonizes  all  the  three. 

Teleology  concerns  the  ends  for  which  organisms  were 
designed.  The  recognition,  therefore,  that  their  formation 
took  place  by  an  evolution  not  fortuitous,  in  no  way  invali- 
dates the  acknowledgment  of  their  final  causes  if  on  other 
grounds  there  are  reasons  for  believing  that  such  final 
causes  exist. 

Conformity  to  type,  or  the  creation  of  species  according 
to  certain  "  divine  ideas,'*  is  in  no  way  interfered  >vith  by 
such  a  process  of  evolution  as  is  here  advocated.  Such 
"divine  ideas"  must  be  accepted  or  declined  upon  quite 
other  grounds  than  the  mode  of  their  realization,  and  of 
their  manifestation  in  the  world  of  sensible  phenomena. 

Transmutationism  (an  old  name  for  the  evolutionary  hy- 
pothesis), which  was  conceived  at  one  time  to  be  the  very 
antithesis  to  the  two  preceding  conceptions,  harmonizes 
well  with  them  if  the  evolution  be  conceived  to  be  onlerly 
and  designed.  It  will  in  the  next  chapter  be  shown  to  be 
completely  in  harmony  with  conceptions,  upon  the  accept- 


258  •  THE  GENESIS  OF  SrECJES.  [Ciup. 

ance  of  which  "  final  causes  "  and  "  divine  ideal  archetypes '' 
alike  depend. 

Thus  then,  if  the  cumulative   argument  put  forward  in 
this  book  is  valid,  we  must  admit  the  insulliciency  of  "  Nat- 
ural Selection  "  both  on  account  of  the  residuary  phenomena 
it  fails  to  explain,  and  on  account  of  certain  other  phenom- 
ena which  seem  actually  to  conflict  with  tliat  theory.     We 
liave  seen  that  though  the  laws  of  Nature  are  constant,  yet 
some  of  the  conditions  which  determine  specific  change  may 
be  exceptionally  absent  at  the  present  epoch  of  the  world's 
history  ;  also  that  it  is  not  only  possil)le,  but  higlily  probable, 
that  an  internal  power  or  tendency  is  an  important  if  not 
the  main  agent  in  evoking  the  manifestation  of  new  species 
on  the  scene  of  realized  existence,  and  that  in  any  case, 
from  the  facts  of  homology,  innate  internal  powers  to  tlie 
full  as  mysterious  must  anyhow  be  accepted,  whether  they 
act  in  specific  origination  or  not.     ]iesides  all  this,  we  have 
Been  that  it  is  probable  that  the  action  of  this  innate  power 
is  stimulated,  evoked,  and  determined  by  external  condi- 
tions, and  also  that  the   same  external   conditions,  in  the 
shape  of  "  Natural  Selection,"  play  an  important  part  in  the 
evolutionary  process  :  and  finally,  it  has  been  affirmed  that 
the  view  here  advocated,  while  it  is  supported  by  the  facts 
on  which  Darwinism  rests,  is  not  open  to  the  objections 
and  difTjculties  which  oppose  themsch^es  to  the  reception 
of  "  Natural  Selection,"  as  the  exclusive  or  even  as  the 
main  agent  in  the  successive  and  orderly  evolution  of  or- 
ganic forms  in  the  genesis  of  species. 


XII.]  THEOLOGY  AND  EVOLUTION.  269 


•    CIIAPTER  XII. 

THEOLOGY   AND    EVOLUTION. 

PrejiKllcod  Opinions  on  the  Ptihjpct.— "  Crontion  "  pomrtimen  doniod  from  ri^jiidiro.— 
The  UnkuownMf.— Mr.  Herbert  8ponrer"8  Objections  to  Theism;  to  Crontlon.— 
Mennlnps  of  Term  'Trontion." — C'onftislon  from  not  dlstlnpiilsbinf^  iK-tween  "  Pri- 
mm-)"  and  "  Derlvntlvo"  Ocntlon.— Nfr.  l)nr\vln>  Objections.— Henrlnfr  of  Clirlg- 
tlnnlty  on  the  Tlieory  of  Kvoliitlon.— Supposed  Opposition,  the  IJesiiIt  of  n  Mlscon- 
ceittlon. — Tlieoloplciil  Antliorlty  not  oppose^l  to  Kvoliitlon. — St.  Aiipnstlne. — Pt. 
Thomnfl  Aqtilnns.— Certnln  Consequencos  of  "Want  of  Flexibility  of  Mind.— Ke.rson 
and  Imnplntitlon. — Tbe  First  C'miso  and  Demonstration. — Parallel  between  Clirln- 
tlnnlty  and  Natural  Theolop)-. — What  Evolution  of  Species  Is. — Prof.  Apasslz. — In- 
nate Powers  must  be  recopnlzed.— liearinp  of  Kvolutlon  on  Religious  Belief— Prof. 
Huxley. — Prof.  Owen. — Mr.  AVallace. — Mr.  Dnrwln. — A  priori  Conception  of  Di- 
vine Action. — Orlpin  of  Man.— -.\bsolute  Creation  and  Dopiua. — Mr.  "Wallace's  View. 
— A  Supernatural  Oripin  for  Man's  I?o<ly  not  necessary. — Two  Orders  of  Belnp  In 
Man. — Two  Modes  of  Origin. — Ilannony  of  the  Physical,  Hyperphyslcal,  and  Super- 
natural.— Reconciliation  of  Science  and  Religion  as  regards  Evolution. — Conclusion 

The  special  "D.anvinian  Theory  "  and  that  of  an  evolu- 
tionary process  neither  excessively  minute  nor  fortuitous, 
having  no\v  been  considered,  it  is  time  to  turn  to  the  im- 
portant question,  whetlier  lx)th  or  either  of  these  conce|> 
tions  may  have  any  bearing,  and  if  any,  what,  upon  Chris- 
tian belief. 

Some  readers  will  consider  such  an  inquiry  to  be  a  work 
of  supererogation.  Seeing  clearly  themselves  the  absurdity 
of  prevalent  popular  views,  and  the  shallowness  of  popular 
objections,  they  may  be  impatient  of  any  discussion  on  the 
subject.  But  it  is  submitted  that  there  are  many  nu'nds 
worthy  of  the  highest  esteem  and  of  every  consideration, 
which  have  regained  the  subject  hitherto  almost  exchisive- 
ly  from  one  point  of  view;  that  there  are  some  persons  who 


200  THE   GI:NESIS  of  species.  [Cuap. 

nrc  opposed  to  tlic  progress  (in  their  own  iniiids  or  in  tliat 
of  their  children  or  dependants)  of  physical  scientific  trnth 
— the  natural  revelation — through  a  mistaken  estimate  of 
its  religious  bearings,  while  there  are  others  who  are  zeal- 
ous in  its  promotion  from  a  precisely  similar  error.  For 
the  sake  of  both  these,  then,  tiie  author  may  perhaps  be 
pardoned  for  entering  slightly  on  very  elementary  matters 
relating  to  the  question  whether  evolution  or  Darwinism 
has  any,  and  if  any,  what,  bearing  on  tlieology. 

There  are  at  least  two  classes  of  men  who  will  certainly 
assert  that  they  have  a  very  important  and  highly-signifi- 
cant bearing  upon  it. 

One  of  these  classes  consists  of  persons  zealous  for  reli 
gion  indeed,  but  who  identify  orthodoxy  with  their  own 
private  interpretation  of  Scripture  or  with  narrow  opinions 
in  which  they  have  been  brought  up — opinions  doubtless 
widely  spread,  but  at  the  same  time  destitute  of  any  dis- 
tinct and  authoritative  sanction  on  the  part  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church. 

The  other  class  is  made  up  of  men  hostile  to  religion, 
and  who  are  glad  to  make  use  of  any  and  every  argument 
which  they  think  may  possibly  be  available  against  it. 

Some  individuals  within  this  latter  class  may  not  be- 
lieve in  the  existence  of  God,  but  may  yet  abstain  from 
publicly  avowing  this  absence  of  belief,  contenting  them- 
selves with  denials  of  "  creation  "  and  "  design,"  though 
these  denials  are  really  consequences  of  their  attitude  of 
mind  respecting  the  most  important  and  fundamental  of  all 
beliefs. 

Without  a  distinct  belief  in  a  personal  God  it  is  impos- 
sible to  have  any  ^-eligion  worthy  of  the  name,  and  no  one 
can  at  the  same  time  accept  the  Christian  religion  and  deny 
the  dogma  of  creation. 

"  I  believe  in  God,"  "  the  Creator  of  Heaven  and 
Earth,"  the  very  first  clauses  of  the  Apostles'  Creed,  for- 


XII.]  TUEOLOGY  AND  EVOLUTION.  2G1 

mally  commit  tliose  avIio  accept  them  to  the  assertion  of 
tills  belief.  If,  therefore,  any  theory  of  })hysical  science 
really  conflicts  with  such  an  authoritative  statement,  its 
importance  to  Christians  is  unquestionable. 

As,  however,  "  creation  "  forms  a  part  of  "  revelation," 
and  as  "  revelation  "  appeals  for  its  acceptance  to  "  reason,"  . 
which  has  to  prepare  a  basis  for  it  by  an  intelligent  accept- 
ance of  theism  on  purely  rational  grounds^  it  is  necessary 
to  start  with  a  few  words  as  to  the  reasonableness  of  belief 
in  God,  which  indeed  are  less  superfluous  than  some  read- 
ers may  perhaps  imagine;  "a  few  words,"  because  this  is 
not  the  j)lace  where  the  argument  can  be  drawn  out,  but 
only  one  or  two  hints  given  in  reply  to  certain  modern 
objections. 

No  better  example  perhaps  can  be  taken,  as  a  type  of 
these  objections,  than  a  passage  in  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer's 
**  First  Principles."  *  This  author  constantly  speaks  of  the 
"  ultimate  cause  of  things  "  as  "  the  unknowable,"  a  tenn 
singularly  unfortunate,  and,  as  Mr.  James  Martineau  has 
pointed  out,"  even  self-contradictory:  for  that  entity,  the 

>  Sec  2d  edit.,  p.  113, 

'*' Essays,  riillosopliical  nnd  Tlicological,"  Triibncr  &  Co.,  First  Se- 
ries, ISfifi,  p.  100.  "Every  relative  disability  may  be  read  two  ways. 
A  disqualification  in  the  nature  of  thought  for  knowing  x  is,  from  the 
other  side,  a  disqualification  in  the  nature  of  x  from  being  known.  To 
Bay,  then,  that  the  First  Cause  is  wholly  removed  from  our  apprehension 
is  not  simply  a  disclaimer  of  faculty  on  our  part :  it  is  a  charge  of  in- 
ability against  the  First  Cause  too.  The  dictum  about  it  is  this  :  '  It  is 
a  Being  that  may  exist  out  of  knowledge,  but  that  is  precluded  from  en- 
tering within  the  sphere  of  knowledge.'  We  are  told  in  one  breath  that 
this  Being  must  be  in  every  sense  '  perfect,  complete,  total — including  in 
itself  all  power,  and  transcending  all  law  '  (p.  38) ;  and  in  another  that 
this  perfect  omnipotent  One  is  totally  incapable  of  revealing  any  one  of 
an  infinite  store  of  attributes.  Need  we  point  out  the  contradictions 
-which  this  position  involves  ?  If  you  abide  by  it,  you  deny  the  Absolute 
and  Infinite  in  the  very  act  of  afiirming  it,  for,  in  debarring  the  First 
Cause  from  self-revelation,  you  impose  a  limit  on  its  nature.    And,  in  the 


262  THE  GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap 

knowledge  of  the  existence  of  which  presses  itself  ever 
more  and  more  upon  the  cultivated  intellect,  cannot  be  the 
unknown,  still  less  the,  unknowable^  because  we  certainly 
know  it,  in  that  we  know  for  certain  that  it  exists.  Nay 
more,  to  predicate  incognoscibility  of  it,  is  even  a  certain 
knowledge  of  the  mode  of  its  existence.  Mr.  H.  Spencer 
says : '  "  The  consciousness  of  an  Inscrutable  Power  mani- 
fested to  us  through  all  phenomena  has  been  growing  ever 
clearer;  and  must  eventually  be  freed  fnjm  its  imperfec- 
tions. The  certainty  that  on  the  one  hand  such  a  Power 
exists,  while  on  the  other  hand  its  nature  transcends  intu- 
ition, and  is  beyond  imagination,  is  the  certainty  toward 
which  intelligence  has  from  the  first  been  progressing." 
One  would  think,  then,  that  the  familiar  and  accepted  word 
"the  Inscrutable"  (which  is  in  this  passage  actually  em- 
ployed, and  to  which  no  theologian  would  object)  would 
be  an  infinitely  better  term  than  "  the  unknowable."  Tlie 
above  extract  has,  however,  such  a  theistic  aspect  that 
some  readers  may  think  the  opposition  here  oiTered  super- 
fluous ;  it  may  be  well,  therefore,  to  quote  two  other  sen- 
tences. In  another  place  he  observes :  *  "  Passing  over  the 
consideration  of  credibility,  and  confining  ourselves  to  that 
of  conceivability,  we  see  that  atheism,  pantheism,  and  the- 
ism, when  rigorously  analyzed,  severally  prove  to  be  abso- 
lutely unthinkable  ;  "  and  speaking  of  "  every  form  of  reli- 
gion," he  adds,*  "  The  analysis  of  every  possible  hypothesis 
proves,  not  simply  that  no  hypothesis  is  suflicient,  but  that 
no  hypothesis  is  even  thinkable."  The  unknowable  is  ad- 
mitted to  bo  a  power  which  cannot  be  regarded  as  having 

very  act  of  declaring  the  First  Cause  incognizable,  you  do  not  permit  it 
to  remain  unknown.  For  that  only  is  unknown  of  which  you  can  neither 
affirm  nor  deny  any  predicate  ;  here  you  deny  the  power  of  self-disclosure 
to  the  '  Absolute,'  of  which,  therefore,  something  is  known — viz.,  that 
nothing  can  be  known !  " 

8  Loc.  cit.,  p.  108.  *  Loo.  cit.,  p.  43.  ^  Loc.  cit.,  p.  46. 


XII.J  THEOLOGY  AND  EVOLUTION.  2G3 

sympathy  with  us,  but  as  one  to  which  no  emotion  wliat- 
cver  can  be  ascribed,  and  we  are  expressly  forbidden,  "  by 
dut}/,^"*  to  adinn  personality  of  God  as  much  as  to  deny  it 
of  Ilitn.  How  such  a  bein^  can  be  presented  as  an  object 
on  which  to  exercise  religious  emotion  it  is  difiicult  indeed 
to  understand.'  Aspiration,  love,  devotion  to  be  poured 
forth  upon  what  we  can  never  know,  upon  what  we  can 
never  alTirm  to  know,  or  care  for,  us,  our  thoughts  or  actions, 
or  to  possess  the  attributes  of  wisdom  and  goodness  !  The 
worship  offered  in  such  a  religion  must  be,  as  Prof.  Huxley 
says,^  "for  the  most  part  of  the  silent  sort" — silent  not 
only  as  to  the  spoken  word,  but  silent  as  to  the  mental 
conception  also.  It  will  be  dillicult  to  distinguish  the  fol- 
lower of  this  religion  from  the  follower  of  none,  and  the 
man  who  declines  either  to  assert  or  to  deny  the  existence 
of  God  is  practically  in  tlie  position  of  an  atlieist.  For 
theism  enjoins  the  cultivation  of  sentiments  of  love  and  de- 
votion to  God,  and  the  practice  of  their  external  expression. 
Atheism  forbids  both,  while  the  simply  non-thcist  abstains 
in  conformity  with  the  prohibition  of  the  atheist,  and  thus 
practically  sides  with  him.  Moreover,  since  man  cannot 
imagine  that  of  which  he  has  no  experience  in  any  way 
whatever,  and  since  he  has  experience  only  of  human  per- 
fections and  of  the  powers  and  properties  of  inferior  exist- 
ences, if  he  be  required  to  deny  human  perfections  and  to 

•  Mr.  J.  Martineau,  in  his  "Essays,"  vol.  i.,  p.  211,  observes  :  "  Mr. 
Fpeucer's  conditions  of  pious  worship  arc  hard  to  satisfy  ;  there  must  he 
between  the  Divine  and  human  no  communion  of  thought,  relations  of 
conscience,  or  approach  of  afTection."  ..."  Dut  you  cannot  constitute 
a  religion  out  of  mystery  alone,  any  more  than  out  of  knowledge  alone ; 
nor  can  you  measure  the  relation  of  doctrines  to  humility  and  piety  by 
the  mere  amount  of  conscious  darkness  which  they  leave.  All  worship, 
being  directed  to  what  is  above  us  and  transcends  our  comprehension, 
stands  in  presence  of  a  mystery.  But  not  all  that  stands  before  a  mys- 
tery is  worship." 

^  "  Lay  Sermons,"  p.  20. 


264  TUE   GENESIS   OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

abstain  from  making  use  of  sucli  conceptions,  he  is  thereby 
necessarily  reduced  to  others  of  an  inferior  order.  Mr.  H. 
Spencer  says,*  "  Those  who  espouse  this  alternative  posi- 
tion make  the  erroneous  assumption  that  the  choice  is  be- 
tween personality  and  something  lower  than  i)ersonality ; 
whereas  the  choice  is  rather  between  personality  and  some- 
thing higher.  ]s  it  not  just  possible  that  there  is  a  mode 
of  being  as  much  transcending  intelligence  and  will  as 
these  transcend  mechanical  motion  ?  " 

"  It  is  true  we  are  totally  unable  to  conceive  any  such 
higher  mode  of  being.     But  this  is  not  a  reason   for  ques- 
tioning its  existence ;  it  is  rather  the  reverse."     "  May  we 
not  therefore  rightly  refrain  from  assigning  to  the  '  ultimate 
cause'  any   attributes   whatever,  on  the  ground   that  such 
attributes,  derived  as  they  must  be  from  our  own  natures, 
are  not  elevations  but  degradations  ?  "      The    way,  how- 
ever, to  arrive  at  the  object  aimed  at  (i.  e.,  to  obtain  the 
best  attainable  conception  of  the  First  Cause)  is  not  to  re- 
frain from  the  only  concejjtioiis  possible  to  us,  hwt  to  seek 
the  very  liighest  of  these,  and  then  declare  their  utter  inad- 
equacy; and   this  is  precisely  the  course  which  lias  been 
pursued  by  theologians.     It  is  to  be  regretted  that,  before 
writing  on  this  matter,  Mr.  Spencer  did  not  more  tliorough- 
ly  acquaint  himself  with  the  ordinary  doctrine  on  the  sub- 
ject.    It  is  always  taught  in  the  Church  schools  of  divinity, 
that  nothing,  not  even  existence,  is  to  be  predicated  unlvo- 
cally  of  "  God  "  and  "  creatures  ;  "  that,  after  exhausting 
ingenuity  to  arrive  at  the  loftiest  possible  conceptions,  we 
must  declare  them  to  be  utterly  inadequate  ;  that,  after  all, 
they  are    but   accommodations    to    human   inlirmity;  that 
they  are  in  a  sense  objectively  false  (because  of  their  inad- 
equacy),  though    subjectively    and   very   practically    true. 
But  the  difference  between  this  mode  of  treatment  and  that 
adopted  by  Mr.  Spencer  is  wide  indeed ;  for  the  practical 

®  Loc.  cit.,  p.  109. 


XII.]  TnEOLOGY  AND  EVOLUTION  2G5 

result  of  llie  mode  inculcated  by  the  Churcli  is,  that  each 
one  may  freely  afllrin  and  act  upon  the  higliest  human  con- 
cei)tions  he  can  attain  of  the  power,  wisdom,  and  goodness 
of  God,  His  watchful  care,  His  loving  providence  for  every 
man,  at  every  moment  and  in  every  need;  for  the  Chris-  • 
lian  knows  that  the  falseness  of  his  conceptions  lies  only  in 
their  innchfjnary ;  he  may  therefore  strengthen  and  re- 
fresh himscilf,  may  rejoice  and  revel  in  concej)tions  of  the 
goodness  of  God,  drawn  from  the  tendercst  human  images 
of  fatherly  cue  and  love,  or  he  may  cliasten  and  abase 
himself  by  consideration  of  the  awful  holiness  and  unap- 
proaf^hable  majesty  of  the  Divinity  derived  from  analogous 
sources,  knowing  that  no  thought  of  man  can  ever  be  true 
enovgh^  can  ever  attain  the  incompi-chensiblc  reality,  which 
nevertheless  really  ?.9  all  that  can  be  conceived,  plus  an  in- 
conceivable infinity  bej^ond. 

A  good  illustration  of  what  is  here  meant,  and  of  the 
di (Terence  between  the  theistic  jwsition  and  Mr.  Spencer's, 
may  be  supj^lied  by  an  examj^le  he  has  himself  pi\)poscd. 
Thus,'  he  imagines  an  intelligent  watch  speculating  as  to 
its  maker,  and  conceiving  of  him  iir terms  of  watch-being, 
and  figuring  him  as  furnished  with  sj^rings,  escajiements, 
cogged  wheels,  etc.,  his  motions  facilitateil  bv  oil — in  a 
"word,  like  himself.  It  is  assumed  by  Mr.  Spencer  that  this 
necessary  watch  conception  would  be  completely  false,  and 
the  illustration  is  made  use  of  to  show  "  the  presumption  of 
theologians  " — the  absurdity  and  unreasonableness  of  those 
men  who  figure  the  incomprehensible  cause  of  all  phenom- 
ena as  a  Being  in  some  way  comparable  with  man.  Now, 
putting  aside  for  the  moment  all  other  considerations,  and 
accepting  the  illustration,  surely  the  examjile  demonstrates 
rather  the  unreasonableness  of  the  objector  himself  f  It  is 
true,  indeed,  that  a  man  is  an  organism  indefinitely  more 
complex  and  perfect  than  any  w^atch  ;  but,  if   the  watch 

•  Loc  cit.,  p.  Ill 
12 


266  THE   GEXESrS   OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

could  only  conceive  of  its  maker  in  watch  terms,  or  else  in 
terms  altogetlier  inferior,  tlie  watch  woukl  plainly  be  right 
in  speaking  of  its  maker  as  a,  to  it,  inconcx^ivably  perfect 
kind  of  watch,  acknowledging,  at  the  same  time,  that  this, 
its  conception  of  him,  was  utterly  inadequate,  although  the 
best  its  inferior  nature  allowed  it  to  form.  For,  if,  instead 
of  HO  conceiving  of  its  maker,  it  refused  to  ujake  use  of  tliese 
relative  perfections  as  a  makeshift,  and  so  necessarily 
thought  of  him  as  amorphous  metal,  or  mere  oil,  or  by  the 
help  of  any  other  inferior  conception  which  a  watch  might 
be  imagined  capable  of  entertaining,  that  watch  would  be 
wrong  indeed.  For  man  can  much  more  properly  be  com- 
l)ared  with,  and  has  much  more  alliuity  to,  a  perfect  watch 
in  full  activity  than  to  a  mere  piece  of  metal,  or  drop  of  oi). 
But  the  watch  is  even  more  in  the  right  still,  for  its  maker, 
man,  virtually  Jias  the  cogged  wheels,  springs,  escapements, 
oil,  etc.,  which  the  watch's  conception  has  been  supposed  to 
attribute  to  him  ;  inasmuch  as  all  these  parts  must  have 
existed  as  distinct  ideas  in  the  human  watclunaker's  mind 
before  he  could  actually  construct  the  ckx^k  formed  by  him. 
Nor  is  even  this  all,  for,  by  the  hypothesis,  the  watch  thinks. 
It  must,  thendbre,  think  of  its  maker  as  "a  thinking  being," 
and  in  this  it  is  absolutely/  and  GOtnpletehj  rUjht.^*  li^ither, 
therefore,  the  hypothesis  is  absurd,  or  it  actually  demon- 
strates the  very  2^ositlon  it  loas  chosen  to  refute.  Unques- 
tionably, then,  on  the  mere  ground  taken  by  Mr.  Herbert 
Spencer  himself,  if  we  are  compelled  to  think  of  the  First 
Cause  either  in  human  terms  ())ut  with  human  imperfections 
abstracted  and  human  perfections  carried  to  the  highest  con- 
ceivable degree),  or,  on  the  other  hand,  in  terms  decidedly 
inferior,  such  as  those  are  driven  to  who  think  of  Ilim,  but 
decline   to  accept  as  a  help  the  term  "personality,"  there 

'°  In  this  criticism  on  Mr,  Herbert  Spencer,  the  author  tinds  he  has 
been  anticipated  by  Mr.  James  Martineau.  (See  "  Essays,"  vol.  i.,  p. 
208.) 


XII.]  THEOLOGY  AND  EVOLUTION.  2G7 

can  bo  no  question  but  that  the  first  conception  is  immeas- 
urably nearer  the  truth  than  the  second.  Yet  the  latter  is 
the  one  put  forward  and  advocated  by  that  author  in  spite 
of  its  unreasonableness,  and  in  spite  also  of  its  conflicting' 
with  the  whole  moral  nature  of  man  and  all  his  noblest 
aspirations. 

Again,  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer  objects  to  the  conception 
of  God  as  "first  cause,"  on  the  ground  that"  when  our  sym- 
bolic conceptions  are  such  that  no  cumulative  or  indirect 
processes  of  thought  can  enable  us  to  ascertain  that  there 
are  corresponding  actualities,  nor  any  predictions  be  made 
•whose  fulfilment  can  prove  this,  then  they  are  altogetlier 
vicious  and  illusive,  and  in  no  way  distinguishable  from 
pure  fictions."  " 

Now,  it  is  quit<3  true  that  "  symbolic  conceptions,"  which 
are  not  to  be  justified  cither  (1)  by  presentations  of  sense, 
or  (2)  by  intuitions,  are  invalid  as  representations  of  real 
truth.  Yet  the  conception  of  God  referred  to  is  justified  by 
our  primary  intuitions,  and  we  can  assure  ourselves  tliat  it 
does  stand  for  an  actuality  by  comparing  it  with  (1)  our 
intuitions  of  free-will  and  causation,  and  (2)  our  intuitions 
of  morality  and  responsibility.  That  -we  have  these  intui- 
tions is  a  point  on  which  the  author  joins  issue  with  Mr. 
Spencer,  and  confidently  afiRrms  that  they  cannot  logically 
be  denied  without  at  the  same  time  complete  and  absolute 
skepticism  resulting  from  such  denial — skepticism  wherein 
vanishes  any  certainty  as  to  the  existence  both  of  Mr. 
Spencer  and  his  critic,  and  by  which  it  is  equally  impossible 
to  have  a  thought  free  from  doubt,  or  to  go  so  far  as  to 
affirm  the  existence  of  that  very  doubt  or  of  the  doubter  who 
doubts  it. 

It  may  not  be  amiss  here  to  protest  against  the  intoler- 
able assumption  of  a  certain  school,  who  are  continually 
talldng  in  lofty  terms  of  "  science,"  but  who  actually  speak 

"  Loc.  cit.,  p.  29. 


268  THE  GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

of  primary  religious  conceptions  as  "  unscientific,"  and 
habitually  em})loy  the  word  "  science,"  when  they  should 
limit  it  by  the  prefix  "physical."  This  is  llie  more  amazing, 
as  not  a  few  of  this  school  adopt  the  idealist  philosophy,  and 
aflirm  that  "  matter  and  force "  are  but  names  for  certain 
"  modes  of  consciousness."  It  might  be  expected  of  them 
at  least  to  admit  that  opinions  which  repose  on  primary  and 
fundamental  intuitions  are  especially  and  ^>ar  excelleiice 
scientific. 

Such  are  some  of  the  objecticms  to  the  Christian  concep- 
tion of  God.^    We  may  now  turn  to  those  which  are  directed 
against  God  as  the  Creator,  i.  e.,  as  the  absolute  originator 
of  the  universe,  without  the  employment  of  any  preexisting 
means  or  material.     This  is  again  considered  by  ]\Ir.  Spen- 
cer as  a   thoroughly  illegitimate   symbolic  conception,   as 
much   so  as   the   atheistic  one — the  difficulty  as   to  a  self- 
existejit  Creator  being  in  his  opinion  equal  to  that  of  a  self- 
existent  universe.     To  this  it  may  be  replied  that  both  are 
of  course  equally  luiimar/inabley  but  that  it  is  not  a  question 
of  facility  of  conception — not  which  is  easiest  to  conceive, 
but  which  best  accounts  for,  and  accords  with,  psychological 
facts;  namely,  with  the  above-mentioned  intuitions.     It  is 
contended  that  tee  have  these  primary  intuitions,  and   that 
with  these  the  conception  of  a  self-existent  Creator  is  per- 
fectly harmonious.     On   the  other  hand,  the   notion   of   a 
self-existent    universe — that    there    is    no    real  distinction 
between  the  finite  and  the  infinite — that  the  universe  and 
ourselves  are  one  and  the  same  things  with  the  infinite  and 
the  self-existent — these  assertions,  in  addition  to  being  un- 
imaginable, contradict  our  primary  intuitions. 

Mr.  Darwin's  objections  to  "  Creation "  are  of  quite  a 
different  kind,  and,  before  entering  upon  them,  it  will  be 
well  to  endeavor  clearly  to  understand  what  we  mean  by 
"  Creation,"  in  the  various  senses  in  which  the  term  may  be 
used. 


XII.]  THEOLOGY   AND   EVOLUTION.  2C9 

In  the  strictest  and  highest  sense  "  Creation "  is  the 
absohitc  origination  of  any  tiling  by  God  without  preexist- 
ing means  or  material,  and  is  a  supernatural  act." 

In  tlie  secondary  and  lower  sense,  "  Creation "  is  the 
formation  of  any  tiling  by  God  derivativehj  ;  that  is,  that 
the  preceding  matter  has  been  created  with  the  potentiality 
to  evolve  from  it,  under  suitable  conditions,  all  the  various 
forms  it  subsequently  assumes.  And  this  power  having 
been  conferred  by  God  in  the  first  instance,  and  those  laws 
and  powers  having  been  instituted  by  Ilim,  through  the 
action  of  which  the  suitable  conditions  are  supplied.  He  is 
said,  in  this  lower  sense,  to  create  such  various  subsequent 
forms.  This  is  the  natural  action  of  God  in  the  physical 
•world,  as  distinguished  from  His  direct,  or,  as  it  may  be  here 
called,  supernatural  action. 

In  yet  a  third  sense,  the  word  "  Creation  "  may  be  more 
or  less  improperly  applied  to  the  construction  of  any  com- 
plex formation  or  state  b}'^  a  voluntary  self-conscious  being 
who  makes  use  of  the  powers  and  laws  which  God  has  im- 
posed, as  when  a  man  is  spoken  of  as  the  creator  of  a 
museum,  or  of  "his  own  fortune,"  etc.  Such  action  of  a 
created  conscious  intelligence  is  purely  natural,  but  more 
than  physical,  and  may  be  conveniently  sjx)ken  of  as  hyper- 
physical. 

We  have  thus  (1)  direct  or  supernatural  action;  (2)  phys- 
ical action  ;  and  (3)  hyperphysical  action — the  two  latter 
both  belonging  to  the  order  of  nature."  Neither  the  phys- 
ical nor  the   hyperphysical  actions,   however,  exclude  the 

^"^  The  author  means  by  this,  that  it  is  dircdhj  ami  immcdiatcJij  the 
act  of  God,  the  word  "supernatural"  bclnf^  used  in  a  sense  convenient 
for  the  purposes  of  this  work,  and  not  in  its  ordinary  ihcolopical  sense. 

"  The  phrase  "order  of  nature"  is  not  hero  u.-^cd  in  its  thcolo-rical 
sense  as  distinj^uishcd  from  the  "  order  of  grace,"  but  ns  a  term,  hero 
convenient,  to  denote  actions  not  due  to  direct  and  immediate  Divine  in- 
tervention. 


270  THE   GENESIS   OF   SPECIES.  [Chap. 

idea  of  tlie  Divine  concurrence,  and  with  every  consistent 
tlieist  that  idea  is  necessarily  included.  Dr.  Asa  Gray  has  / 
given  exj)ression  to  this.**  lie  says,  "  Agreeing  that  plants  ^ 
und  animals  were  produced  by  Oninii)otent  iiat  does  not 
exclude  the  idea  of  natural  order  and  what  we  call  second- 
ary causes.  The  record  of  the  fiat — *  Let  the  earth  bring 
forth  grass,  tlie  lierb  yielding  seed,'  etc.,  Met  the  earth 
bring  forth  the  living  creature  after  his  kind  ' — seems  even 
to  imply  them,"  and  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  the  various 
kinds  were  produced  through  natural  agencies. 

Now,  mucii  confusion  has  arisen  from  not  keeping 
clearly  in  view  this  distinction  between  absolute  creation  / 
und  derivative  creation.  With  the  first,  physical  science 
has  plainly  notliing  whatever  to  do,  and  is  impotent  to 
prove  or  to  refute  it.  The  second  is  also  safe  from  any  at- 
tack on  the  part  of  physical  science,  for  it  is  primarily 
derived  from  psychical  not  physical  phenomena.  The 
greater  part  of  the  apparent  force  possessed  by  objectors 
to  creation,  like  Mr.  Darwin,  lies  in  their  treating  the  asser- 
tion of  derivative  creation  as  if  it  was  an  assertion  of  abso- 
lute creation,  or  at  least  of  supernatural  action.  Thus,  he 
asks  whether  some  of  his  opponents  believe  "  that,  at  innu- 
merable periods  in  the  earth's  history,  certain  elemental 
atoms  have  been  commanded  suddenly  to  flash  into  living 
tissues."  *'  Certain  of  Mr.  Darwin's  objections,  however, 
are  not  physical,  but  metaphysical^  and  really  attack  the 
dogma  of  secondary  or  derivative  creation,  though  to  some 
perhaps  they  may  appear  to  be  directed  against  absolute 
creation  only. 

Tiius  he  uses,  as  an  illustration,  the  conception  of  a  man 
■who  builds  an  edifice  from  fragments  of  rock  at  the  ])ase  of 
a  precipice,  by  selecting,  for  the  construction  of  the  various 

'^  "  A  Free  Examination  of  Darwin's  Treatise,"  p.  29,  reprinted  from 
the  Atlantic  Montldy  for  July,  August,  and  October,  1800. 
'5  "Origin  of  Species,"  5th  edit.,  p.  671. 


XII.]  .TIIEOLOGY   AND   EVOLUTION.  271 

parts  of  tlic  building,  the  i)icccs  which  aro  the  most  suitable, 
owing  to  the  shape  they  happen  to  have  broken  into.  After- 
ward, alluding  to  this  illustration,  he  says  :  "  "  The  sliape  of 
the  fragments  of  stone  at  the  base  of  our  precipice  may  be 
called  accidental,  but  this  is  not  strictly  correct,  for  the 
shape  of  each  depends  on  a  long  sequence  of  events,  all 
obeying  natural  laws,  on  the  nature  of  the  rock,  on  the  linens 
of  stratification  or  cleavage,  on  the  form  of  the  mountain 
w^hich  depends  on  its  upheaval  and  subseriuent  denurlation, 
and  lastly,  on  the  storm  and  earthquake  which  threw  down 
the  fragments.  But,  in  regard  to  the  use  to  which  the 
fragments  may  be  put,  their  shape  may  strictly  be  said  to 
])e  accidental.  And  here  we  are  led  to  face  a  great  diiliculty, 
in  alluding  to  which  I  am  aware  that  I  am  travclhng  beyond 
my  proj)er  province." 

"  An  onmiscient  Creator  must  have  foreseen  every  conse- 
quence which  results  from  the  laws  imposed  by  Ilim  ;  but 
can  it  be  reasonably  maintained  that  the  Creator  intention- 
ally ordered,  if  we  use  the  words  in  any  ordinary  sense,  that 
certain  fragments  of  rock  should  assume  certain  shapes,  so 
that  the  builder  might  erect  his  edifice  ?  If  the  various 
laws  which  have  determined  the  shape  of  each  fragment 
"Nverc  not  predetermined  for  the  builder's  sake,  cnn  it  with 
any  greater  probability  be  maintained  that  He  specially 
ordained,  for  the  sake  of  the  breeder,  each  of  the  innumera- 
ble variations  in  our  domestic  animals  and  plants — many 
of  these  variations  being  of  no  service  to  man,  and  not 
beneficial,  far  more  often  injurious,  to  the  creatures  them- 
selves? Did  He  ordain  that  the  crop  and  tail-feathers  of 
the  pigeon  should  vary,  in  order  that  the  fancier  might 
make  his  grotesque  pouter  and  fimtail  breeds?  Did  lie 
cause  the  frame  and  mental  qualities  of  the  dog  to  varj',  in 
order  that  a  breed  might  be  formed  of  indomitable  ferocity, 
with  jaws  fitted  to  pin  down  the  bull  for  man's  brutal  8j)ort  ? 

"  ''Animals  and  Tlauts  under  Domestication,"  vol  ii,,  p.  431 


272  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  Chap. 

But,  if  we  give  up  the  principle  in  one  case — if  we  do  not 
mlinit  that  the  variiitions  of  the  primeval  tlog  were  inten- 
tionally guidetl,  in  order  that  the  greyiiound,  for  instance, 
that  perfect  image  of  symmetry  and  vigor,  might  be 
formed — no  shadow  of  reason  can  be  assigned  for  the 
belief  that  the  variations,  alike  in  Nature,  and  the  result  of 
the  sjxine  general  laws,  which  have  been  the  groundwork 
through  "  iVatural  Selection  '*  of  the  formation  of  the  most 
perfectly-adapted  animals  in  the  world,  man  included,  were 
intentionally  and  specially  guided.  However  much  we 
may  wish  it,  we  can  hardly  follow  Prof.  Asa  Gray  in  his 
belief  that  'variation  has  been  led  along  certain  Ijeneiicial 
lines,'  like  a  stream  '  along  definite  and  useful  lines  of  irri- 
gation.'" 

"  If  we  assume  that  each  particular  variation  was  from 
the  beginning  of  all  time  preordained,  the  plasticity  of  the 
organiziition,  which  leads  to  many  injurious  deviations  of 
structure,  as  well  as  that  redundant  power  of  re[)r(xluction 
Avliicli  inevitably  leads  to  a  struggle  for  existence,  and,  as  a 
consequence,  to  the  "  Natural  Selection  "  and  survival  of  the 
fittest,  must  a})|X!ar  to  us  superiluous  laws  of  Nature.  On 
the  other  hand,  an  oinni|K)tent  and  omniscient  Creator  or- 
dains every  thing  and  foresees  every  thing.  Thus  we  are 
brought  face  to  face  with  a  dilHculty  as  insoluble  as  is  that  ^J 
of  free-will  and  predestination." 

Before  proceeding  to  reply  to  this  remarkable  passiige, 
it  may  be  well  to  remind  some  readers  that  belief  in  the 
existence  of  God,  in  His  primary  creation  of  the  universe, 
and  in  His  derivative  creation  of  all  kinds  of  being,  inor- 
ganic and  organic,  do  not  repose  upon  physical  phenomena, 
but,  as  has  been  said,  on  primary  intuitions.  To  deny  or 
ridicule  any  of  these  beliefs  on  phj'sical  grounds  is  to  com- 
mit the  fallacy  of  ujnoratlo  elenchi.  It  is  to  commit  an 
absurdity  analogous  to  that  of  saying  a  blind  child  could 
not  recognize  his  father  because  he  could  not  see  him,  for- 
getting that  lie  could  hear  and  feel  him.     Yet  there  are 


XII.]  THEOLOGY  AND   EVOLUTION. 


273 


some  wlio  appear  to  find  it  unreasonable  and  absurd  ibat 
men  should  regard  phenomena  in  a  light  not  furnislied  by 
or  dcducible  from  the  very  phenomena  themselves,  although 
the  men  so  regarding  them  avow  that  the  light  in  wliich 
they  do  view  them  comes  from  quite  another  source.  It  is 
as  if  a  man,  A,  coming  into  B's  room  and  finding  there  a 
butterfly,  should  insist  that  B  had  no  right  to  believe  that 
the  butterfly  had  not  flown  in  at  the  open  window,  inasnuich 
as  there  was  nothing  about  the  room  or  insect  to  lead  to 
any  other  belief;  while  B  can  well  sustain  his  right  so  to 
believe,  he  having  met  C,  who  told  him  he  brought  in  tlic 
clirysalis,  and,  having  seen  the  insect  emerge,  took  away  the 
skin. 

By  a  similarly  narrow  and  incomplete  view,  the  asser- 
tion that  human  conceptions,  such  as"  the  vertebrate  idea," 
etc.,  are  ideas  in  the  mind  of  God,  is  sometimes  ridiculed; 
as  if  the  assertors  either  on  the  one  hand  pretended  to  some 
prodigious  acuteness  of  mind — a  far-reaching  genius  not 
possessed  by  most  naturalists — or,  on  the  other  hand,  as  if 
they  detected,  in  the  very  phenQmena  furnishing  such 
special  conception,  evidences  of  Divine  imaginings.  But 
let  the  idea  of  God,  according  to  the  highest  conceptions 
of  Christianity,  be  once  accepted,  and  then  it  becomes 
simply  a  truism  to  say  that  the  mind  of  the  Deity  contains 
all  that  is  good  and  j^ositive  in  the  mind  of  man,  /)/?/.«?,  of 
course,  an  absolutely  inconceivable  infinity  beyond.  That 
thus  such  human  conceptions  may,  nay  must,  be  asserted  to 
be  at  the  same  time  ideas  in  the  Divine  mind  also,  as  every 
real  and  separate  individual  that  has  been,  is,  or  shall  be,  is 
present  to  the  same  mind.  Nay,  more,  that  such  Innnan 
conceptions  are  but  faint  and  obscure  adujnbrations  of  cor- 
responding ideas  which  exist  in  the  mind  of  God  in  j)crfec- 
tion  and  fulness.  " 

"  The  Rev.  Baden  Powell  says:  "All  sciences  approach  perfection  as 
they  approach  to  a  unity  of  first  principles — in  all  cases  recurring  to  or 


274  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

The  tlieist,  having  arrived  at  his  theistic  convictions  from 
quite  other  sources  than  a  consideration  of  zoological  or 
botanical  plienomena,  returns  to  the  consideration  of  such 
j)henoniena  and  views  them  in  a  theistic  light,  without  of 
course  asserting  or  implying  that  such  light  has  been  de- 
rived from  t/ienij  or  that  there  is  an  obligation  of  reason  so 
to  view  tijcni  on  the  part  of  others  who  refuse  to  enter  upon 
or  to  acce])t  those  otlier  sources  whence  have  been  derived 
the  tlieistic  convictions  of  the  theist. 

IJut  Mr.  Darwin  is  not  guilty  of  arguing  against  meta- 
physical ideas  on  physical  grounds  only,  for  he  employs 
very  distinctly  metaphysical  ones  ;  namely,  his  conceptions 
of  the  nature  and  attributes  of  the  First  Cause.  But  what 
conceptions  does  he  offer  us  ?  Nothing  but  that  low  an- 
thropomorphism which,  unfortunatel}',  he  so  often  seems  to 
treat  as  the  necessary  result  of  Theism.  It  is  again  the 
dununy,  helpless  and  deformed,  set  up  merely  for  the  purpose 
of  being  knocked  down. 

tending  toward  certain  high  elementary  conceptions  which  are  tlie  repre- 
Bcntatives  of  tlio  unity  of  the  great  archetypal  ideas  according  to  which 
the  whole  systeiu  is  arranged.  Inductive  conceptions,  very  i)artially  and 
imperfectly  realized  and  apprehended  by  human  intellect,  are  the  expo- 
nents in  our  minds  of  these  great  principles  of  Nature." 

"  All  science  is  but  the  partial  reflection,  in  the  reason  of  man ^  of  the 
great  all-pervading  reason  of  the  universe.  And  thus  the  tinity  of  science 
is  the  reflection  of  the  xinUy  of  Nature,  and  of  the  unity  of  that  supreme 
reason  and  intelligence  which  pervades  and  rules  over  Nature,  and  from 
whence  all  reason  and  all  science  is  derived."  (Unity  of  Worlds,  P^ssay 
i.,  §  ii. ;  Unity  of  Sciences,  pp.  79,  81.)  Also  he  quotes  from  Oersted's 
"Soul  in  Nature"  (pp.  12,  10,  18,  87,  02,  y77).  "If  the  laws  of  reason 
did  not  exist  in  Nature,  we  should  vainly  attempt  to  force  them  upon 
her:  if  the  laws  of  Nature  did  not  exist  in  our  reason,  we  should  not  be 
able  to  comprehend  them."  ..."  We  find  an  agreement  between  our 
reason  and  works  which  our  reason  did  not  produce."  ..."  All  exist- 
ence is  a  dominion  of  reason."  "  The  laws  of  Nature  are  laws  of  reason, 
and  altogether  form  an  endless  unity  of  reason ;  .  .  .  one  and  the  same 
throughout  the  universe." 


Xir.]  THEOLOGY  AND   EVOLUTION.  275 

It  must  once  more  be  insisted  on,  tlmt,  thouf^li  man  is 
indeed  compelled  to  conceive  of  God  in  human  terms,  and 
to  speak  of  Him  by  epithets  objectively  false,  from  their 
hopeless  inadecpiacy,  yet  nevertheless  the  Christian  thinker 
declares  that  inadequacy  in  the  strongest  manner,  and  vehe- 
mently rejects  from  his  idea  of  God  all  terms  distinctly  im- 
plying infirmity  or  limitation. 

Now,  Mr.  Darwin  speaks  as  if  all  who  believe  in  the 
Almighty  were  comj)elled  to  accept  as  really  applicable  to 
the  Deity  conceptions  which  aflirm  limits  and  imperfections. 
Thus  he  says :  "  Can  it  be  reasonably  maintained  that  the 
Creator  intentionally  ordered  "  "  that  certain  fragments  of 
rock  should  assume  certain  shapes,  so  that  the  builder 
might  erect  his  edifice  ?  " 

Why,  surely  every  theist  must  maintain  that  in  the  first 
foundation  of  the  universe — the  primary  and  absolute  crea- 
tion— God  saw  and  knew  every  purpose  which  every  atom 
and  particle  of  matter  should  ever  subserve  in  all  suns  and 
systems,  and  throughout  all  coming  oions  of  time.  It  is 
almost  incredible,  but  nevertheless  it  seems  necessary  to 
think  that  the  diflieulty  thus  proposed  rests  on  a  sort  of 
notion  that  amid  the  boundless  profusion  of  Nature  there 
is  too  much  for  God  to  superintend  ;  that  the  number  of 
objects  is  too  great  for  an  infinite  and  omnipresent  being 
to  attend  singly  to  each  and  all  in  their  due  proportions  and 
needs  !  In  the  same  way  Mr.  Darwin  asks  whether  God  can 
have  ordered  the  race  variations  referred  to  in  the  passage 
last  quoted,  for  the  considerations  therein  mentioned.  To 
this  it  may  be  at  once  rei)lied  that  even  man  often  has 
several  distinct  intentions  and  motives  for  a  single  action, 
and  the  theist  has  no  difficulty  in  supposing  that,  out  of  an 
infinite  nu?nber  of  motives,  the  motive  mentioned  in  each 
case  may  hav^e  been  an  exceedingly  subordinnte  one.  The 
theist,  though  ])roperly  attributing  to  God  what,  for  want 
of  a  better  term,  he  calls  "  purpose "  and  "  design,"  yet 


27G  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

afTirms  that  the  limitations  of  human  purposes  and  motives 
arc  by  no  means  applicable  to  the  Divine  "  purposes."  Out 
of  many,  say  a  thousand  million,  reasons  for  the  institution 
of  the  laws  of  the  physical  universe,  some  few  are  to  a 
certain  extent  conceivable  by  us  ;  and  among  these  the 
benclits,  material  and  moral,  accruing  from  them  to  men, 
and  to  each  individual  man  in  every  circumstance  of  his 
life,  i)lay  a  certain,  perhaps  a  very  subordinate,  i)art."  As 
liaden  Powell  observes,  "  J  low  can  we  undertake  to  aflirm, 
umid  all  the  possibilities  of  things  of  which  we  confessedly 
know  so  little,  that  a  thousand  ends  and  purposes  may  not 
be  answered,  because  we  can  trace  none,  or  even  imagine 
none,  which  seem  to  our  short-sighted  faculties  to  be  an- 
swered in  these  particular  arrangements  ?  "  '* 

Tiie  objection  to  the   bull-dog's   ferocity  in  connection 

'*  In  the  same  way  Mr.  Lewes,  in  criticising  the  Duke  of  Argyll's 
"Reign  of  Law"  {Fortnightly  Revitw,  July,  1807,  p.  100),  asks  whether 
wc  should  consider  that  luan  wise  who  spilt  a  gallon  of  wine  in  order  to 
till  a  wui(;-glass  ?  But,  because  wc  should  not  do  so,  it  by  no  means 
ftillows  that  we  can  argue  from  such  an  action  to  the  action  of  (Jud  in 
the  visible  luiiverse.  For  the  man's  object,  in  tlie  case  supposed,  is 
biniply  to  (ill  the  wine-glass,  and  the  wine  spilt  is  so  much  loss.  With 
Ciod  it  may  be  entirely  dilVerent  in  both  respects.  All  these  objections 
are  fully  met  by  the  principle  thus  laid  down  by  St.  Thomas  Aquinas  : 
*'  Quod  si  aliqua  causa  particularis  deficiat  a  suo  elFectu,  hoc  est  propter 
alicpiam  causam  particularem  impcdiantem  quo;  continctur  sub  ordine 
causae  universalis.  Untie  cHectus  ordinem  causiE  universalis  nuUo  modo 
potest  exire."  .  .  .  "  Sicut  indigcstio  contingit  pincter  ordinem  virtutis 
nutritivaj  ex  aliquo  impedimento,  puta  ex  grossitie  cibi,  quam  uccesse  est 
rcducere  in  aliam  causam,  et  sic  us(iue  ad  causam  i)rimam  univcrsalem. 
Cum  igitur  Deus  sit  prima  causa  universalis  non  unius  gcneri  tantum, 
hcd  universaliter  totius  entis,  impossibile  est  quod  aliipiid  contingat 
prieter  ordinem  divinie  gubernationis  ;  sed  ex  hoc  ipso  (juod  alicjuid  ex 
una  parte  videtur  exire  ab  ordine  divina)  providentiie,  quo  consideratur 
secundam  alitjuam  particularem  causam,  necesse  est  quod  in  eundem 
ordinem  relabatur  secundum  aliam  causam." — Sum.  27icol.,  p.  i.,  q.  19, 
a.  6,  and  q.  103,  a.  7. 

»»  "  Unity  of  Worlds,"  Essay  ii.,  §  ii.,  p.  2C0. 


XlfJ  THEOLOGY  AND  EVOLUTION. 


277 


with  "man's   brutal  sport"  opens  up  the  familiar  but  vast 
question  of  the  existence  of  evil,  a  problem   the  discussion 
of  wliicli  would  be  out  of  place  here.     Considering,  however, 
the  very  great  stress  which  is  laid  in  the  present  day  on  the 
subject  of  animal  suffering  by  so  many  amiable  and  excel- 
lent people,  one  or  two  remarks  on  that  matter  may  not  be 
superfluous.     To  those  who  accept  the  belief  in   God,  the 
soul  and  moral  responsibility  ;  and  recognize  the  full  results 
of  that  acceptance — to   such,  j)hysical  suffering  and  moral 
evil  are  simply  incommensurable.     To  them  tlie  placing  of 
non-moral  beings  in  the  same  scale  with    moral  agents  will 
be   utterly  unendurable.     But  even    considering    pliysical 
pain  only,  all  must  admit   that  this  depends  greatly  on  the 
mental  condition  of  the   sufferer.     Onlv  during  conscious- 
ncss   does  it  exist,  and  only  in    the  most  highly-organized 
men  does  it  reach  its  acme.     The  author  has  been  assured 
that  lower  races  of  men  appear  less  keenly  sensitive  to  pliysi- 
cal pain  than  do  more  cultivated  and  refined  human  beings. 
Thus  only  in  man  can  there  really  be  any  intense  degree  of 
suffering,  because  only  in  him  is  there  that  intellectual  rec- 
ollection of  past   moments  and  that  anticipation  of  future 
ones,  which  constitute  in  great  part  the  bitteniess  of  suf- 
fering."*    The  momentary  p.ang,  the    present  jiain,  which 
beasts  endure,  though  real  enough,  is  yet,  doubtless,  not  to 
be  compared  as  to  its  intensity  with  the  suffering  which  is 
produced  in  man  through  his  high  prerogative  of  self-con- 


sciousness." 


As  to  the  " beneficial  lines"  (of  Dr.  Asa  Gray,  be- 
fore referred  to),  some  of  the  facts  noticed  in  the  preceding 
chapters  seem  to  point  very  decidedly  hi  that  direction,  but 

5"  See  the  exceedingly  good  passage  on  this  pubject  by  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Newman,  in  his  "Discourses  for  Mixed  Congregations,"  18r)0,  p.  345. 

"  See  Mr.  G.  IL  Lewcs's  "  Sea-Side  Studies,"  for  some  excellent  re- 
marks, beginning  at  p.  329,  as  to  the  small  susccptibUity  of  certaiu  aui- 
mala  to  pain. 


278 


THE   fiENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 


aM  must  admit  that  the  actual  existing  outcome  is  far  more 
"  beneficial  "  than  the  reverse.  The  natural  universe  has 
resulted  in  the  development  of  an  unmistakable  harmony 
and  beauty,  and  in  a  decided  preponderance  of  good  and  of 
happiness  over  their  opposites. 

Even  if  ^'  laws  of  Nature  "  did  appear,  on  the  thcistio 
liypotliesis,  to  be  "superfluous"  (whicli  it  is  by  no  means 
intended  here  to  admit),  it  wouhl  be  nothing  less  than  pue- 
rile to  prefer  rejecting  the  hypothesis  to  conceiving  that 
the  appearance  of  superfluity  was  probably  due  to  human 
ignorance ;  and  this  especially  might  be  expected  from  nat- 
uralists to  whom  the  interdependence  of  Nature  and  the 
harmony  and  utility  of  obscure  phenomena  are  becoming 
continually  more  clear,  as,  e,  g.,  the  structure  of  orchids  to 
their  illustrious  expositor. 

Having  now  cleared  the  ground  somewhat,  we  may  turn 
to  the  question  what  bearing  Christian  dogma  has  upon 
evolution,  and  whether  Christians,  as  such,  need  take  up 
any  definite  attitude  concerning  it. 

As  has  been  said,  it  is  plain  that  physical  science  and 
"evolution  "  can  have  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  absolute  y/ 
or  primary  creation.  Theliev.  Baden  Powell  well  expresses 
this,  saying :  "  Science  demonstrates  incessant  past  changes, 
and  dimly  points  to  yet  earlier  links  in  a  more  vast  series 
of  development  of  material  existence ;  but  the  idea  of  a  5e- 
ginning^  or  of  creation^  in  the  sense  of  the  original  operation 
of  the  Divine  volition  to  constitute  Nature  and  matter,  is  be- 
yond the  province  of  physical  philosophy."  " 

With  secoiKlary_Qrj]exi\jrtiye^cr£iition,j)hysicj^^  science 
is  also  incapable  of  conflict ;  for  the  objections  drawn  by 
some  writers  seemingly  from  physical  science  are,  as  has 
been  already  argued,  rather  metaphysical  than  physical. 

Derivative  creation  is  not  a  supernatural  act,  but  is 
simply  the  Divine  action  by  and  through  natural  laws.     To 

"  "  Philosophy  of  Creatiou,"  Edsay  iii.,  §  iv.,  jj.  480. 


XII.]  TUEOLOGY  AND  EVOLUTION.  279 

recognize  sucli  action  in  such  laws  is  a  religious  mode  of  re- 
garding phenoniena,  which  a  consistent  tlicist  must  neces- 
sarily accept,  and  which  an  atheistic  believer  must  similarly 
reject.  But  this  conception,  if  deemed  superfluous  by  any 
naturalist,  can  never  be  shown  to  he  false  by  any  investiga- 
tions concerning  natural  laws,  the  constant  action  of  which 
it  presupposes. 

The  conflict  has  arisen  through  a  misunderstanding. 
Some  have  supposed  that  by  "  creation "  was  necessarily 
meant  either  primary,  that  is,  absolute  creation,  or,  at  least, 
some  supernatural  action  ;  they  have  therefore  opposed  tlie 
dogma  of  "  creation  "  in  the  imagined  interest  of  pliysical 
science. 

Others  have  supposed  that  by  "  evolution  "  was  neces- 
sarily meant  a  denial  of  Divine  action,  a  negation  of  the 
providence  of  God.  They  have  therefore  combated  the 
theory  of  "  evolution  "  in  the  imagined  interest  of  religion. 
It  appears  plain,  then,  that  Christian  thinkers  are  perfectly 
free  to  accept  the  general  evolution  theory.  But  are  there 
any  theological  authorities  to  justify  this  view  of  the  mat- 
ter ? 

Now,  considering  how  extremely  recent  are  these  bio- 
logical speculations,  it  might  hardly  be  expected  a  priori 
that  writers  of  earlier  ages  should  have  given  expression  to 
doctrines  harmonizing  in  any  degree  with  such  very  modem 
views,"  nevertheless  such  most  certainly  is  the  case,  and  it 

2'  It  secmg  almost  strange  tluit  modern  English  thought  should  so 
long  hold  aloof  from  familiar  communion  with  Christian  writers  of  othor 
ages  and  countries.  It  is  rarely  indeed  that  acquaintance  i.s  shown  with 
such  authors,  though  a  bright  example  to  the  contrary  was  set  by  Sir 
"Wiiliani  Hamilton.  Sir  Charles  Lyell  (in  his  "?nnci[ile3  of  Geology," 
7th  edition,  p.  35)  speaks  with  approval  of  the  early  Italian  geologists. 
Of  Vallisneri  he  says,  "  I  return  with  pleasure  to  the  geologists  of  Italy 
who  preceded,  as  has  been  already  shown,  the  naturalists  of  other  coun- 
tries in  their  investigations  into  the  ancient  history  of  the  earth,  and  who 
still  maintained  a  decided  preeminence.     They  refuted  and  ridiculed  the 


280  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

would  bo  easy  to  give  numerous  examples.  It  will  be  bet- 
ter, however,  only  to  cite  one  or  tAVO  authorities  of  weight. 
Now,  perhaps  no  writer  of  tlie  earlier  Christian  ages  could 
be  quoted  Avhose  authority  is  more  generally  recognized 
than  that  of  St.  Augustine.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the 
mediicval  period,  for  St.  Thomas  Aquinas ;  and,  since  the 

pliysico-theological  systcnis  of  Burnet,  "Whiston,  and  Woodward  ;  while 
Vallisncri,  in  his  coniincuts  on  the  Woodwardian  theory,  remarked  how 
much  the  interests  of  reli}j;ion,  as  well  as  tliofie  of  sound  phihisophy,  had 
sulVercd  by  porpotiuilly  mixing  up  the  sacred  writinj^s  with  questions 
of  physical  science."  Again,  he  quotes  the  Carmelite  friar  Cenerelli, 
who,  illustrating  Moro  before  the  Academy  of  Cremona  in  1749,  strongly 
oi)posed  those  who  would  introduce  the  supernatural  into  the  donmin  of 
Nature.  "  I  hold  in  utter  abomination,  most  learned  Academicians  ! 
those  systems  which  are  built  with  their  foundations  in  the  air,  and  can- 
not be  propped  up  without  a  miracle,  and  I  undertake,  with  the  assist- 
ance of  Moro,  to  explain  to  you  how  these  marine  monsters  were  trans- 
ported into  the  mountains  by  natural  causes." 

Sir  Charles  Lyell  notices  with  exemplary  impartiality  the  spirit  of  in- 
tolerance on  both  sides.  How  in  France,  BufTon,  on  the  one  hand,  was 
influenced  by  the  theological  faculty  of  the  Sorbonne  to  recant  his  theory 
of  the  earth,  and  how  Voltaire,  on  the  other,  allowed  his  prejudices  to 
get  the  better,  if  not  of  his  judgment,  certainly  of  his  expression  of  it. 
Thinking  that  fossil  remains  of  shells,  etc.,  were  evidence  in  favor  of  or- 
tbodox  views,  Voltaire,  Sir  Charles  Lyell  (Principles,  p.  56)  tells  us, 
''endeavored  to  inculcate  skepticism  as  to  the  real  nature  of  such  shells, 
and  to  recall  from  contempt  the  exploded  dogma  of  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury, that  they  were  sports  of  Nature.  He  also  pretended  that  vegetable 
impressions  were  not  those  of  real  plants."  ..."  He  would  sometimes, 
in  defiance  of  all  consistency,  shift  his  ground  when  addressing  the  vul- 
gar; and,  admitting  the  true  nature  of  the  shells  collected  in  the  Al|)S 
and  other  places,  pretend  that  they  were  Eastern  species,  whieli  had 
fallen  from  the  hats  of  pilgrims  coming  from  Syria.  The  numerous  essays 
written  by  him  on  geological  subjects  were  all  calculated  to  strengthen 
prejudices,  partly  because  he  was  ignorant  of  the  real  state  of  the  science, 
and  partly  from  his  bad  faith."  As  to  the  harmony  between  many  early 
Church  writers  of  great  authority  and  modern  views  as  regards  certain 
matters  of  geology,  see  "Geology  and  Kevelation,"  by  the  liev.  Gerald 
Molloy,  D.  D.,  London,  1870. 


Xir.]  THEOLOGY  AND   EVOLUTION.  281 

movomcnt  of  Liitlior,  Suarcz  may  be  taken  as  a  writer  widely 
venerated  as  an  authority,  and  one  whose  orthodoxy  has 
never  been  questioned. 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that,  for  a  consideral)le  time 
after  even  the  last  of  these  writers,  no  one  had  disputed  the 
gcncrally-reeeived  view  as  to  the  small  age  of  the  world  or 
at  least  of  the  kinds  of  animals  and  plants  inhabiting  it.  It 
becomes  therefore  much  more  striking  if  views  formed  under 
such  a  condition  of  opinion  are  found  to  harmonize  with 
modern  ideas  regarding  "Creation  "  and  organic  life. 

Now,  St.  Augustine  insists  in  a  very  remarkable  manner 
on  the  merely  derivative  sense  in  which  God's  creation  of  or- 
ganic  ft)nns  is  to  be  understood  ;  that  is,  that  God  created 
them  by  conferring  on  the  material  world  the  power  to  evolve 
them  under  suitable  conditions.  lie  says  in  his  book  on 
Genesis :  '*  "  Terrestria  animalia,  tanquam  ex  ultimo  elc- 
mento  mundi  ultima  ;  nihilominus  potentialUer,  quorum  nu- 
meros  tempus  postea  visibiliter  explicaret." 

Ag-ain  he  savs  : 

"  Sicut  autem  in  ipso  grano  invisibiliter  crant  omnia 
simul,  qune  per  tempora  in  arborem  surgerent ;  ita  ipse  mun- 
dus  cogitandus  est,  cum  Dcus  sumd  0)7i7iia  creav it,  hahuisso 
simul  omnia  qure  in  illo  et  cum  illo  facta  sunt  quando  factus 
est  dies;  non  solum  coelum  cum  sole  et  lunA,  et  sideribus 
.  .  .  . ;  sed  etiam  ilia  qua?  aqua  et  terra  produxit  potcntialitcr 
atque  causaliter,  priusquam  per  temporum  moras  its  cxori- 
rcntur,  rpiomodo  nobis  jam  nota  sunt  in  eis  operibus,  quns 
Deus  usque  nunc  operatur."  " 

"  Omnium  quippe  rerum  qure  corporaliter  visibiliterque 
nascuntur,  occulta  quondam  semina  in  istis  corporeis  mundi 
liujus  dementis  latent."  " 

2^  «'  De  Gencsi  ad  Litt.,"  lib.  v.,  cap.  v.,  No.  14  in  Ben.  Edition,  vol 
ill,,  p.  180. 

"  Lib.  cit.,  cap.  xxii.,  No.  41. 

««  Lib.  cit.,  "  Dc  Trinitatc,"  lib.  iii.,  cap.  viii.,  No.  14. 


282  TOE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

And  again  :  "  Ista  quippe  originaliter  ac  primordialiter 
in  quadam  textura  elemeutorum  cuncta  jam  creata  sunt ;  sed 
acceptis  opportunitatibus  prodeunt."  " 

St.  Tlionias  Aquinas,  as  was  said  in  the  first  chapter, 
quotes  witli  approval  the  saying  of  St.  Augustine,  that  in 
the  first  institution  of  Nature  we  do  not  look  for  Miracles^ 
but  for  the  laws  of  Nature:  "In  ])rinui  institutione  natune 
non  quiuritur  niiraculum,  sed  quid  natura  reruni  habeat,  ut 
Augustinus  dicit."  " 

Again,  he  quotes  with  approval  St.  Augustine's  asser- 
tion tliat  the  kinds  were  created  only  derivatively,  '''' potentl' 
aliter  tantumy  " 

Also  he  says :  "  In  prima  aiitem  rerum  institutione  fuit 
principium  activaam  verbum  Dei,  quod  de  materia  elementari 
produxit  animalia,  vel  in  actua  vol  virtute^  secundum  Aug. 
lib.  5  de  Gen.  ad  lit.  c.  5."  " 

Speaking  of  *'  kinds  "  (in  scholastic  phraseology  "  sub- 
stantial forms")  latent  in  matter,  he  says:  "Quas  qui- 
dam  posuerunt  non  incipere  per  actionem  naturai  sed  prius 
in  materia  exstitisse,  ponentcs  latitat ionem  formarum.  Et 
hoc  accidit  eis  ex  ignorantia  materia^,  quia  nesciebant  distin- 
guere  inter  potentiam  et  actum.  Quia  enim  forniie  pra^ex- 
istunt  eas  sim})liciter  pncexistere."  "* 

Also  Cornelius  A  Lapide  "  contends  that  at  least  certain 
animals  were  not  absolutely,  but  only  derivatively  created, 
saying  of  them,  "  Non  fuerunt  creata  formaliter,  sed  poten- 
tiaUter." 

As  to  Suarez,  it  will  be  enough  to  refer  to  Disp.  xv.  § 
2,  n.  9,  p.  508,  t.  i.  Edition  Vioes^  Paris;  also  Nos.  13-15, 

"  Lib.  cit.,  cap.  ix.,  No.  16. 

'*  St.  Thomas,  Smiiraa,  i.,  quest.  67,  art.  4,  ad  3. 

2^  Pi-imte  I'aitis,  vol.  ii.,  quest.  74,  art.  2. 

30  Lib.  eit.,  quest.  71,  art.  1. 

2'  Lib.  cit.,  quest.  45,  art.  8. 

•^  Vide  In  (jienesim  Commeut.,  cap.  i. 


XII.]  THEOLOGY  AND  EVOLUTION.  283 

and  many  other  references  to  the  same  effect  could  easily 
be  given,  but  those  may  suflice. 

It  is  then  evident  that  ancient  and  most  venerable  theo- 
logical authorities  distinctly  assert  derivative  creation,  and 
.thus  harmonize  with  all  that  modern  science  can  possibly 
require. 

It  may  indeed  in\]y  be  said  with  Roger  J^acon,  "The 
saints  never  condemned  many  an  opinion  which  the  moderns 
think  ought  to  be  condemned."  " 

The  various  extracts  given  show  clearly  how  far  "evolu- 
tion "  is  from  any  necessary  opposition  to  the  most  orthodox 
theology.  The  same  may  be  said  of  spontaneous  genera- 
tion. Tlie  rtiost  recent  form  of  it,  latelj-  advocated^by  Dr. 
II.  Ciiarlton  liastiati,"  teaches  that  matter  exists  in  two 
diiferent  forms,  the  crystalline  (or  statical)  and  the  colloidal 
(or  dynamical)  conditions.  It  also  teaches  that  colloidal 
matter,  when  exposed  to  certain  conditions,  presents  the 
phenomena  of  life,  and  that  it  can  be  formed  from  crystal- 
line matter,  and  thus  that  the  prima  materia^  of  which  these 
are  diverse  forms,  contains  potentially  all  the  multitudinous 
kinds  of  animal  and  vegetable  existence.  This  theory,  more- 
over, harmonizes  well  with  the  views  here  advocated,  for 
just  as  crystalline  matter  builds  itself,  under  suitable  con- 
ditions, along  certain  definite  li?ies,  so  analogously  colloidal 
matter  has  its  definite  lines  and  directions  of  development. 
It  is  not  collected  in  haphazard,  accidental  aggregations, 
but  evolves  according  to  its  proper  laws  and  special  proper- 
ties. 

88  Roger  Bacon,  Opus  tcrtmm,  c.  ix.,  p.  27,  quoted  in  the  liambhr 
for  1859,  vol.  xii.,  p.  375. 

3»  See  Nature,  June  and  .Tiily,  1870.  Those  who,  like  Profs.  Huxley 
and  Tyndnll,  do  not  accept  his  conclusions,  none  the  less  nj^rce  with  him 
in  principle,  though  they  limit  the  evolution  of  the  organic  world  from 
the  inorganic  to  a  very  remote  period  of  the  world's  history.  (See  Trof. 
Huxley's  address  to  the  British  Association  at  Liverpool,  1870,  p.  17.) 


284  THE   GENESIS   OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

Tlie  perfect  orthodoxy  of  these  views  is  unquestionable. 
Nothing  is  plainer  from  the  venerable  writers  quoted,  as  well 
as  from  a  mass  of  other  authorities,  than  that  "  tlie  super- 
natural "  is  not  to  be  looked  for  or  expected  in  the  sphere 
of  mere  Nature.  For  this  statement  there  is  a  general  con-t/ 
sensiis  of  theological  authority. 

The  teachin<2:  which  tiie  autiior  has  received  is,  that  God 
is  indeed  inscrutable  and  incomprehensible  to  us  from  the 
inliiiity  of  His  attributes,  so  that  our  minds  can,  as  it  were, 
only  take  in,  in  a   most  fragmentary  and  indistinct  manner 
(as  through  a  glass  darkly),  dim  conceptions  of  infinitesimal 
portions  of  His  inconceivable  perfection.     In  this  way  the 
partial  glimpses  obtained  by    us  in  different  modes  differ 
from  each  other;  not  that  God  is  any  thing  but  the  most 
perfect  unity,  but  that  apparently  conflicting  views  arise 
from  our  inability  to  apprehend  Him,  except  in  this  imper- 
fect manner,  i.  e.,  by  successive  sliglit  approximations  along 
different  lines  of  approach.    Sir  William  Hamilton  has  said," 
"  Nature  conceals  God,  and  man  reveals  Him."     It  is  not, 
according  to  the  teaching    spoken  of,  exactly  thus ;    but 
rather  that  pliysical   Nature  reveals   to  us  one   side,   one 
aspect  of  the  Deity,  Avhile  the   moral  and  religious  worlds 
bring  us  in  contact  with  another,  and   at  first,  to  our  appro-  V 
hension,  a  very  different  one.     The  difference  and  discrep- 
ancy, however,  which  is  at  first  felt,  is  soon  seen  to  proceed 
not  from  the  reason,  but  from  a  want  of  flexibility  in  the 
imagination.     This  want  is  far  from  surprising.     Not  only 
may  a  man  naturally  be  expected  to  be  an  adept  in  his  own 
art,  but  at  tlie  same  time  to  show  an  incapacity  for  a  very 
different  mode  of  activity."     We   rarely  find  an  artist  who 

"  "  Lectures  on  Metaphysics  and  Logic,"  vol,  i.,  Lecture  ii.,  p.  40. 

2^  In  the  sume  way  that  an  undue  cultivation  of  any  one  liiiul  of 
knowledge  is  prejudicial  to  philosophy.  Mr.  James  Muitineau  well  ob- 
serves:  "Nothing  is  more  common  than  to  see  maxims,  which  are  unex- 
ceptionable  as  the  assumptions  of  particular  sciences,  coerced  into  the 


XII.]  THEOLOGY  AND  EVOLUTION.  285 

takes  much  interest  in  jurisprudence,  or  a  prize-fighter  who 
is  an  acute  metaphysician.  Nay,  more  than  tliis,  a  positive 
distaste  may  ^row  up,  whicli,  in  the  intellectual  order,  may 
amoimt  to  a  spontaneous  and  unreasoning  disbelief  in  tliat 
which  appears  to  be  in  opposition  to  the  more  familiar  con- 
cept, and  this  at  all  times.  It  is  often  and  truly  said,  tlmt 
"past  ages  were  preeminently  credulous  as  compared  with 
our  own,  yet  the  dilTerence  is  not  so  much  in  the  amount  of 
the  credulity,  as  in  the  direction  which  it  takes."  " 

Dr.  Newman  observes:  "Any  one  study,  of  whatever 
kind,  exclusively  pursued,  deadens  in  the  mind  the  interest, 
nay,  the  perception  of  any  other.  Thus  Cicero  says  that 
Plato  and  Demosthenes,  Aristotle  and  Isocratcs,  might  have 
respectively  excelled  in  each  other's  province,  but  that 
each  was  absorbed  in  his  own.  Specimens  of  this  peculiar- 
ity occur  every  day.  You  can  hardly  persuade  some  mnn 
to  talk  about  any  thing  but  their  own  pursuit ;  they  refer  tlic 
whole  world  to  their  own  centre,  and  measure  all  matters  by 
their  own  rule,  like  the  fisherman  in  the  drama,  whose  eu- 
logy on  his  deceased  lord  was,  *  He  was  so  fond  of  fish.' "  " 

The  same  author  further  says:"  "When  anything, 
which  comes  before  us,  is  very  unlike  what  we  commonly 

service  of  a  nnirersal  pliiiosophy,  and  so  turned  into  instruments  of  mis- 
chief and  distortion.  That  "  we  can  know  nothing  but  phenomena" — 
thnt  "  rausntion  is  simply  constant  priority" — tliat '*  mon  nre  povrrnrd 
invariably  by  their  interests,"  arc  examples  of  rules  allowable  as  domi- 
nant hypotheses  in  physios  or  political  economy,  but  exercisiiip  n  deso- 
lating  tyranny  wlicn  thrust  on  to  the  throne  of  universal  empire.  Ho 
^\lio  seizes  tipon  these  and  similar  maxims,  and  carries  them  in  triumph 
on  his  banner,  may  boast  of  his  escape  from  the  uncertainties  of  meta- 
physics, but  is  himself  all  the  while  the  unconscious  victim  of  their  very 
vulgarcst  deception."  ("Essays,"  Second  Scries,  A  Flea /or  Fhilosophi- 
cal  Studies,  p.  421.) 

"  Lecky's  "History  of  Rationalism,"  vol.  i.,  p.  73. 

88  "  Lectures  on  University  Subjects,"  by  J.  II.  Newman,  D.  D.,  p. 
322. 

«»  Loo.  cit.,  p.  324. 


28G  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

experience,  we  consider  it  on  that  account  untrue ;  not  be- 
cause it  really  shocks  our  reason  as  improbable,  but  because 
it  startles  our  imagination  as  strange.  Now,  revelation 
presents  to  us  a  perfectly  different  aspect  of  the  universe 
from  that  presented  by  the  sciences.  The  two  informations 
are  like  the  distinct  subjects  represented  by  the  lines  of  the 
same  drawing,  which,  accordingly  as  they  are  read  on  their 
concave  or  convex  side,  exhibit  to  us  now  a  group  of  trees 
with  branches  and  leaves,  and  now  human  faces."  .... 
'•  While,  then,  reason  and  revelation  are  consistent  in  fact,  . 
th(iy  often  are  inconsistent  in  appearance  ;  and  this  seemingr 
discordance  acts  most  keenly  on  the  imagination,  and  may 
suddenly  expose  a  man  to  the  temptation,  and  even  hurry 
him  on  to  the  commission,  of  definite  acts  of  unbelief,  in 
which  reason  itself  really  does  not  come  into  exercise  at 
all."  " 

Thus  we  find  in  fact  just  that  distinctness  between  the 
ideas  derived  from  physical  science  on  the  one  hand  and 
from  religion  on  the  other,  which  we  might  a  priori  expect 
if  there  exists  that  distinctness  between  the  natural  and 
the  miraculous  which  theological  authorities  lay  down. 

Assuming,  for  argument's  sake,  the  truth  of  Christian- 
ity, it  evidently  has  not  been  the  intention  of  its  author  to 
make  the  evidence  for  it  so  plain  that  its  rejection  would 
be  the  mark  of  intellectual  incapacity.  Conviction  is  not 
forced  upon  men  in  the  way  that  the  knowledge  that  the 
government  of  England  is  constitutional,  or  that  Paris  is 
tiie  capital  of  France,  is  forced  upon  all  who  choose  to  in- 
quire into  those  subjects.  The  Christian  system  is  one 
which  puts  on  the  strain,  as  it  were,  every  faculty  of  man's 

40  Thus  Prof.  Tyndall,  in  the  Pall  Mall  Gazette  of  June  15,  1868, 
speaking  of  pliysical  science,  observes  :  "  Tlie  lo(/ical  feebleness  of  science 
id  not  suHiciently  borne  in  mind.  It  keeps  down  the  weed  of  supersti- 
tion, not  by  logic,  but  by  slowly  rendering  the  mental  soil  unfit  for  itd 
cultivation."  ' 


XII.]  THEOLOGY  AND  EVOLUTIOxV.  287 

nature,  and  tlic  intellect  is  not  (any  more  than  we  sliould 
a  priori  expect  it  to  be)  exempted  from  takiM«r  part  in  the 
probationaiy  trial.  A  moral  element  enters  into  the  ac- 
ceptance of  that  system. 

And  so  with  natural  religion — with  those  ideas  of  the 
supernatural,  viz.,  God,  Creation,  and  Morality,  which  arc 
anterior  to  revelation  and  repose  upon  reason.  Here,  again, 
it  evidently  has  not  been  the  intention  of  the  Creator  to 
make  the  evidence  of  His  existence  so  plain  that  its  non- 
recognition  would  be  the  mark  of  intellectual  incapacity.^ 
Conviction,  as  to  theism,  is  not  forced  upon  men  as  is  the 
conviction  of  the  existence  of  the  sun  at  noonday.*'  A 
moral  element  also  enters  here,  and  the  analogy  there  is  in 
this  respect  between  Christianity  and  theism  speaks  elo- 
quently of  their  primary  derivation  from  one  common 
author. 

Thus  we  might  expect  that  it  would  be  a  vain  task  to 
seek  anywhere  in  Nature  for  evidence  of  Divine  action, 
sucli  that  Tio  one  could  sanely  deny  it.  God  will  not  allow 
Himself  to  be  caught  at  the  lx)ttom  of  any  man's  crucible, 
or  yield  Himself  to  the  experiments  of  gross-minded  and 
irreverent  inquirers.      The  naturai,J[ikc_thc_si^)cr[iaXiiraJ^ 

reveljiJbionji^>Qjil§,t9J{4c45Aii^6LP^^iU^ 
not  iojC^jeasgiy^oXone^'^ 

None,  therefore,  need  feel  disappointed  that  evidence 
of  the  direct  action  of  the  first  cause  in  merely  natural  plie- 
nomena  ever  eludes  our  grasp ;  for  assuredly  those  same 
phenomena  will  ever  remain  fundamentally  inexplicable  by 
physical  science  alone. 

There  being,  then,  nothing  in  either  authority  or  reason 

<'  But  this  is  not,  of  course,  meant  to  deny  that  the  existence  of  CJod 
can  be  demonstrated,  so  as  to  demand  the  assent  of  the  intellect  taken, 
80  to  speak,  by  itself. 

^'  See  some  excellent  remarks  in  the  Rev,  Dr.  Newman's  Parochial 
Sennons — the  new  edition  (18G9),  vol.  i.,  p.  211. 


288  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Ciup. 

wliicli  makes  "evolution"  repugnant  to  Cliristianity,  is 
there  any  tiling  in  tlie  Cliristian  doctrine  of  "Creation" 
^vllicll  is  repugnant  to  the  theory  of  "  evolution  ?" 

Enouofh  has  been  said  as  to  the  distinction  between  ab- 
solute  and  derivative  "creation."  It  remains  to  consider 
the  successive  "  evolution  "  (Darwinian  and  other)  of  "  spe- 
cific forms,"  in  a  theological  light. 

As  to  what  "  evolution  "  is,  we  cannot  of  course  hope 
to  explain  it  completely,  but  it  may  be  enough  to  define  it 
as  the  manifestation  to  the  intellect,  by  means  of  sensible 
impressions,  of  some  ideal  entity  (power,  principle,  nature, 
or  activity)  which  before  that  manifestation  was  in  a  la- 
tent, unrealized,  and  merely  "  potential "  state — a  state 
that  is  capable  of  becoming  realized,  actual,  or  manifest, 
the  requisite  conditions  being  supplied. 

"  Specific  forms,"  kinds  or  species,  are  (as  was  said  in 
the  introductory  chapter)  "peculiar  congeries  of  characters 
or  attributes,  innate  powers  and  qualities,  and  a  certain 
nature  realized  in  individuals." 

Tims,  then,  the  "evolution  of  specific  forms"  means  the 
actual  manifestation  of  special  powers,  or  natures,  which 
before  were  latent,  in  such  a  successive  manner  that  there 
is  in  some  way  a  genetic  relation  between  posterior  mani- 
festations and  those  which  preceded  them. 

On  the  special  Darwinian  hypothesis,  the  manifestation 
of  these  forms  is  determined  simply  by  the  survival  of  the 
fittest  of  many  indefinite  variations. 

On  the  hypothesis  here  advocated  the  manifestation  is 
controlled  and  helped  by  such  survival,  but  depends  on 
some  unknown  internal  law  or  laws  which  determine  varia- 
tion at  special  times  and  in  special  directions. 

Prof.  Agassiz  objects  to  the  evolution  theory,  on  the 
ground  that  "  species,  genera,  families,  etc.,  exist  as 
thoughts,  individuals  as  facts,  "  "  and  he  offers  the  dilemma, 

"  American  Journal  of  Science,  July,  18G0,  p.  H3,  quoted  in  Dr.  Asa 
Gray's  pamphlet,  p  47. 


XII.]  THEOLOGY  AND  EVOLUTION.  289 

"If  speciCvS  do  not  exist  at  all,  as  tlic  snpporlcrs  of  tlic 
Irniismutation  theory  maintain,  liow  can  they. vary  ?  and  if 
individuals  alone  exist,  how  can  the  difTcrcnccs  which  may 
be  observed  among  them  prove  the  variability  of  species?  " 

But  the  supporter  of  "evolution"  need  only  maintain 
that  the  several  "kinds"  become  manif(»stcd  p^radnallv  by 
slight  differences  among  the  various  individual  embodi- 
ments of  one  specific  idea.  He  might  reply  to  the  dilem- 
ma by  saying,  species  do  not  exist  as  species  in  the  sense 
in  which  they  are  said  to  vary  (variation  applying  only  to 
the  concrete  embodiments  of  the  specific  idea),  and  the 
evolution  of  species  is  demonstrated  not  by  individuals  as 
individuals^  but  as  embodiments  of  difi'erent  specific  ideas. 

Some  persons  seem  to  object  to  the  term  "  creation " 
being  applied  to  evolution,  because  evolution  is  an  "ex- 
ceedingly slow  and  gradual  process."  Now,  even  if  it  were 
demonstrated  that  such  is  really  the  case,  it  may  be  asked, 
what  is  "slow  and  gradual  ?"  The  terms  are  simply  rela- 
tive, and  the  evolution  of  a  specific  form  in  ten  thousand 
years  would  be  instantaneous  to  a  being  whose  days  were 
as  hundreds  of  millions  of  years. 

There  are  others,  again,  who  are  inclined  absolutely  to 
deny  the  existence  of  species  altogether,  on  the  ground 
that  their  evolution  is  so  gradual  that  if  we  could  see  all 
the  stages  it  would  be  impossible  to  say  wJien  the  manifesta- 
tion of  the  old  specific  fonn  ceased. and  that  of  the  new  one 
began.  But  surel}'  it  is  no  approach  to  a  reason  against 
the  existence  of  a  thing  that  we  cannot  dctennine  the  ex- 
act moment  of  its  first  manifestation.  When  watching 
"  dissolving  views,"  who  can  tell,  while  closely  observing 
the  gradual  changes,  exactly  at  what  moment  a  new  ])ic- 
ture,  say  St.  Mark's,  Venice,  can  be  said  to  have  com- 
menced its  manifestation,  or  have  begun  to  dominate  a 
preceding  representation  of  "Dotheboys  Hall?"  That, 
however,  is  no  reason  for  denying  the  complete  difTcrcnce 
13 


290  THE  GENESrS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

between  the  two  pictures  and  the  ideas  they  respectively 
embody. 

The  notion  of  a  special  nature,  a  peculiar  innate  power 
and  activity — what  the  scholastics  called  a  "substantial 
form  " — will  be  distasteful  to  many.  Tlie  objection  to  the 
notion  seems,  howeveir,  to  be  a  futile  one,  for  it  is  absolute- 
ly impossible  to  altogether  avoid  such  a  conception  and 
such  an  assumption.  If  we  refuse  it  to  the  indivichials 
which  embody  tlie  species,  we  must  admit  it  as  regards 
their  component  parts — nay,  even  if  we  accept  the  hypoth- 
esis of  pangenesis,  wo  are  nevertheless  (JompeUod  to  at- 
tribute to  each  gemmule  that  j^eculiar  power  of  reproducing 
its  own  nature  (its  own  "substantial  form"),  with  its  spe- 
cial activity,  and  that  remarkable  }X)wer  of  annexing  itself 
to  certain  other  well-defined  gemmules  whose  nature  it  is 
also  to  plant  themselves  in  a  certain  definite  vicinity.  So 
that  in  each  individual,  instead  of  one  such  peculiar  power 
and  activity  dominating  and  controlling  all  the  parts,  you 
have  an  infinity  of  separate  powers  and  activities  limited 
to  the  several  minute  component  gemmules. 

It  is  possible  that,  in  some  minds,  the  notion  may  lurk 
that  such  powers  are  simpler  and  easier  to  understand,  be- 
cause the  bodies  they  affect  are  so  minute  I  This  absurdity 
hardly  bears  stating.  We  can  easily  conceive  a  being  so 
small,  that  a  gemmule  would  be  to  it  as  large  as  St.  Paul's 
would  be  to  us. 

Admitting,  then,  the  existence  of  species,  and  of  their 
successive  evolution,  is  there  any  thing  in  these  ideas  hostile 
to  Christian  belief  ? 

Writers  such  as  Vogt  and  Buchner  will  of  course  con- 
tend that  there  is;  but  naturalists,  generally,  assume  that 
God  acts  in  and  by  the  various  laws  of  Nature.  And  this 
is  equivalent  to  admitting  the  doctrine  of  "  derivative  cre- 
ation." With  very  few  exceptions,  none  deny  such  Divine 
concurrence.     Even  "  design  "  and  "  purpose  "  are  recog- 


XII.]  THEOLOGY  AND  EVOLUTION.  291 

nizetl  as  quite  compatible  with  evolution,  and  even  witli  the 
special  "  nebular  "  and  Darwinian  forms  of  it.  Trof.  Iluxlcy 
well  says/*  "  It  is  necessary  to  remark  that  tliere  is  a  wider 
teleology,  which  is  not  touched  by  the  doctrine  of  evolution, 
but  is  actually  based  upon  the  fundamental  proposition  of 
evolution."  ..."  The  teleological  and  the  mechanical  views 
of  Nature  arc  not  necessarily  mutually  exclusive;  on  the 
contrary,  the  more  purely  a  mechanist  the  speculator  is,  the 
more  firmly  does  he  assume  a  primordial  molecular  arrange- 
ment, of  which  all  the  phenomena  of  the  universe  are  the 
consequences ;  and  the  more  completely  thereby  is  he  at 
the  mercy  of  the  teleologist,  who  can  always  defy  him  to  dis- 
prove that  this  primordial  molecular  arrangement  was  not 
intended  to  evolve  the  phenomena  of  the  universe."  " 

Prof.  Owen  says  that  natural  evolution,  through  seconrl- 
ary  causes,  "  by  means  of  slow  physical  and  organic  opera- 
tions through  long  ages,  is  not  the  less  clearly  recognizal)Ie 
as  the  act  of  all  adaptive  mind,  because  we  have  abandoned 
the  old  error  of  suj)posing  it  to  be  the  result*'  of  a  prinmrv, 
direct,  and  sudden  act  of  creational  construction."  .  .  .  "  Tiie 
succession  of  species  by  continuously-operating  law  is  not 
necessarily  a  *  blind  operation.'  Such  law  however  dis- 
cerned in  the  properties  and  successions  of  natural  ol)jects, 
intimates,  nevertheless,  a  preconceived  progress.  Organ- 
isms may  be  evolved  in  orderly  succession,  stage  after  stage, 
toward  a  foreseen  goal,  and  the  broad  features  of  the 
course  may  still  show  the  unmistakable  impress  of  Divine 
volition." 

**  See  The  Academy  for  October,  1809,  No.  1,  p.  U. 

^'  Prof.  Iluxlcy  goes  on  to  say  tliat  the  mechanist  mfiy,  in  turn,  de- 
mand of  the  teleologist  how  the  latter  knows  it  was  so  intended.  To 
this  it  may  be  replied  he  knows  it  as  a  necessary  truth  of  reason  dcducod 
from  his  own  primary  intuitions,  which  intuitions  cannot  be  questioned 
without  absohcte  skeptici.'sm. 

*'  The  professor  doubtless  means  the  direct  and  immediate  result. 
(See  Trans.  Zool.  See,  vol.  v.,  p.  90.) 


292  THE  GENESIS   OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

Mr.  Wallace  "  declares  that  the  opponents  of  evolution 
present  a  less  elevated  view  of  the  Almighty.  He  says : 
"  Why  should  we  supi)ose  the  machine  too  complicated  to 
have  been  designed  by  the  Creator  so  comi)lete  that  it 
would  necessarily  work  out  harmonious  results  ?  The 
theory  of  *  continual  interference  '  is  a  limitation  of  the  Cre- 
ator's power.  It  assumes  that  He  could  not  work  by  j)ure 
law  in  tlie  organic,  as  Ho  has  done  in  the  inorganic  worhl." 
Thus,  then,  there  is  not  only  no  necessary  antagonism  be- 
tween the  general  theory  of  "evolution"  and  a  Divine  ac- 
tion, but  the  compatibility  between  the  two  is  recognized 
by  naturalists  who  cannot  be  susj>ected  of  any  strong  theo- 
loijcical  bias. 

The  very  same  may  be  said  as  to  the  special  Darwinian 
form  of  the  theory  of  evolution. 

It  is  true  Mr.  Darwin  writes  sometimes  as  if  he  thought 
that  his  theory  militated  against  even  derioatloe  creation.^* 
This,  however,  there  is  no  doubt,  was  not  really  meant ;  and 
indeed,  in  the  passage  before  quoted  and  criticised,  the 
possil)ility  of  the  Divine  ordination  of  each  variation  is 
spoken  of  as  a  tenable  view.  He  says  ("  Origin  of  S])ecies," 
p.  5G9) :  "  I  see  no  good  reason  why  the  views  given  in  this 
volume  should  shock  the  religious  feelings  of  any  one  ; "  and 
he  speaks  of  life  "having  been  originally  breathed  by  the 
Creator  into  a  few  forms  or  into  one,"  which  is  '}nore  than 
the  dogma  of  creation  actually  requires.  We  find,  then,  that 
no  z/icompatibility  is  asserted  (by  any  scientific  writers  wor- 

<'  "  Natural  Selection,"  p.  280. 

*8  Dr.  Asa  Gray,  e.  g.,  has  thus  understood  Mr.  Darwin.  The  doctor 
says  in  hia  pamphlet,  p.  38:  **  Mr.  Darwin  uses  expressions  which  imply 
that  the  natural  forms  which  surround  us,  because  they  have  a  histtny 
or  natural  sequence,  could  have  been  only  generally,  but  not  particularly 
designed — a  view  at  once  superficial  and  contradictory ;  whereas  his 
true  line  should  be,  that  his  hypothesis  concerns  the  order  and  not  tho 
cause,  the  how  and  not  the  wliy  of  the  phenomena,  and  so  leaves  tho 
question  of  design  just  where  it  was  before." 


XII.]  THEOLOGY   AND  EVOLUTION.  293 

tliy  of  mention)  between  "  evolution  "  and  the  cooperation 
of  tlic  Divine  will;  wliile  the  same  "evolution"  has  been 
shown  to  be  thoroughly  acceptable  to  the  most  orthodox 
theologians  who  repudiate  the  intrusion  of  the  supernatural 
into  the  domain  of  Nature,  A  more  complete  harmony 
could  scarcely  be  desired, 

]3ut,  if  we  may  never  hope  to  find,  in  phj-sical  Nature, 
evidence  of  supernatural  action,  what  sort  of  action  might 
we  expect  to  find  there,  looking  at  it  from  a  theistic  point 
of  view?  Surely  an  action  the  results  of  which  harmonize 
with  man's  reason,"  which  is  orderly,  which  disaccords  witii 
the  action  of  blind  chance  and  with  tlie  "fortuitious  con- 
conrse  of  atoms"  of  Democritus;  but  at  the  same  time  an 
action  -which,  as  to  its  modes,  ever,  in  parts,  and  in  ultimate 
analysis,  eludes  our  grasp,  and  the  modes  of  which  are  dif- 
ferent from  those  by  which  we  should  have  attempted  to 
accomplish  such  ends. 

Now,  this  is  jnst  what  we  do  find.  Tlic  harmonj^,  the 
beauty,  and  the  order  of  the  physical  universe  arc  tlic  themes 
of  continual  panegyrics  on  the  part  of  naturalists,  and  Mr. 
Darwin,  as  the  Duke  of  Argyll  remarks,"  "  exhausts  every 
form  of  words  and  of  illustration  by  which  intention  or  men- 
tal purpose  can  be  described,"  "  when  speaking  of  the  won- 
derfully com}>lex  adjustments  to  secure  the  fertilization  of 
orchids.  Also,  we  find  coexisting  with  this  harmony  a 
mode  of  proceeding  so  different  from  that  of  man  as  (the 
direct  supernatural  action  eluding  us)  to  form  a  stumbling- 

4*  "All  science  is  but  tlic  partial  reflection,  in  tlio  rrnnnn  of  man,  of 
the  great  all-pervading  reason  of  the  univrrfie.  And  tlic  unity  of  Bcioncc 
is  the  reflection  of  the  unHy  of  Nature  and  of  the  vnUij  of  that  Rupromc 
reason  and  intelligence  which  pervades  and  rules  over  Nature,  and  from 
whence  all  reason  and  all  science  is  derived."  (Rev.  Baden  Powell, 
"  Unity  of  the  Sciences,"  Essay  i.,  §  ii.,  p.  81.) 

w  "  The  Reign  of  Law,"  p.  40. 

•>•  Though  Mr.  Darwin's  epithets  denoting  design  are  metaphorical, 
his  admiration  of  the  result  is  unequivocal,  nay,  enthusiastic  I 


294  THE   GENESIS  OF  SrECIES.  [Chap. 

block  to  many  in  the  way  of  their  recog-nition  of  Divine  ac- 
tion at  all :  althouoh  nothinfif  can  be  more  inconsistent  than 
to  speak  of  the  first  cause  as  utterly  inscrutable  and  inconi- 
preiiensible,  and  at  the  same  time  to  expect  to  iind  traces 
of  a  mode  of  action  exactly  similar  to  our  own.  It  is  surely 
enough  if  the  results  harmonize  on  the  whole  and  prepon- 
(ler.itingly  with  the  rational,  moral,  and  lesthetic  instincts 
of  man. 

Mr.  J.  J.  ^furphy  "  has  brought  strongly  forward  the 
evidence  of  "  intelligence  "  throughout  organic  Nature.  lie 
believes  "  that  there  is  something  in  organic  progress  which 
mere  "  Natural  Selection  "  among  spontaneous  variations  will 
not  account  for,"  and  that "  this  something  is  that  organ- 
izing intelligence  which  guides  the  action  of  the  inorganic 
forces,  and  forms  structures  which  neither  "  Natural  Selec- 
tion "  nor  any  other  unintelligent  agency  could  form." 

This  intelligence,  however,  Mr.  Murphy  considers  may 
be  unconscious,  a  conception  which  it  is  exceedingly  dilH- 
cult  to  understand,  and  which  to  many  minds  appears  to  be 
little  less  than  a  contradiction  in  terms ;  the  very  first  con- 
dition of  an  intelligence  being  that,  if  it  knows  any  thing,  it 
should  at  least  know  its  own  existence. 

Surely  the  evidence  from  physical  facts  agrees  well  with 
the  overruling,  concurrent  action  of  God  in  the  order  of 
Nature ;  which  is  no  miraculous  action,  but  the  operation  / 
of  hiws  which  owe  their  foundation,  institution,  and  main- 
tenance, to  an  omniscient  Creator  of  whose  intelligence  our 
own  is  a  feeble  adumbration,  inasmuch  as  it  is  created  in 
the  "  image"  and  "likeness  "  of  its  Maker. 

This  leads  to  the  final  consideration,  a  difliculty  by  no 
means  to  be  passed  over  in  silence,  namely  the  Ouigin  of 
Man.  To  the  general  theory  of  Evolution,  and  to  the  spe- 
cial Darwinian  form  of  it,  no  exception,  it  has  been  shown, 

"  See  "  Habit  and  Intelligeuce,"  vol.  i.,  p.  348. 


XII.]  TUEOLOGY  AND  EVOLUTION.  295 

need  be  taken  on  the  ground  of  orthodoxy.     But,  in  sayiug^/^ 
this,  it  has  not  been  meant  to  include  the  soul  of  man. 

It  is  a  generally-received  doctrine  that  the  soul  of  every 
individual  man  is  absolutely  created  in  the  strict  and  j)ri- 
niary  sense  of  the  word,  that  it  is  produced  by  a  direct 
or  supernatural  "  act,  and,  of  course,  that  by  such  an  act  ^X 
the  soul  of  the  first  man  was  similarly  created  It  is  there- 
fore important  to  inquire  Avhether  "  evolution  "  conflicts 
with  this  doctrine. 

Now,  the  two  beliefs  are  in  fact  perfectly  compatible, 
and  that  either  on  the  hypothesis — 1.  That  man's  body  was 
created  in  a  maimer  difl'crcnt  in  kind  from  that  by  which 
the  bodies  of  other  animals  were  created ;  or  2.  That  it 
was  created  in  a  similar  manner  to  theirs. 

One  of  the  authors  of  the  Darwinian  theor}%  indeed,  con- 
tends that,  even  as  regards  man's  body,  an  action  took  place 
different  from  that  by  which  brute  forms  were  evolved. 
Mr.  Wallace  "  considers  that  "  Natural  Selection  "  alone 
could  not  have  produced  so  large  a  brain  in  the  savage,  in 
possessing  which  he  is  furnished  with  an  organ  beyond  his 
needs.  Also  that  it  could  not  have  produced  that  peculiar 
distribution  of  hair,  especially  the  nakedness  of  the  back, 
which  is  common  to  all  races  of  men,  nor  the  peculiar  con- 
struction of  the  feet  and  hands.  He  says,"  after  six>aking 
of  the  prehensile  foot,  common  without  a  single  exception 
to  all  the  apes  and  lemurs,  "  It  is  difficult  to  see  why  the 
prehensile  power  should  have  been  taken  away  "  by  the 
mere  operation  of  "  Natural  Selection."  "  It  must  certainly 
liave  been  useful  in  climbing,  and  the  case  of  the  ba- 
boons shows  that  it  is  quite  compatible  with  terrestrial 
locomotion.     It  may  not  be  compatible  with  perfectly  easy 

"  The  term,  ns  before  said,  not  being  used  in  its  ordinnry  thcolopicftl 
sense,  but  to  denote  an  immediate  Divine  action  as  distinp.iisl.ed  from 
Go.l'fl'  action  through  the  powers  conferred  on  the  physical  universe. 

M  See  "Natural  Selection,"  pp.  832-360.  "  Loc.  c.t,  p.  819. 


296  THE   GENESIS  OF  SrECIES.  [Chap. 

erect  locomotion  ;  but,  then,  how  can  we  conceive  that  early 
man,  as  an  animal^  gained  any  thing  by  purely  erect  loco- 
motion ?    Again,  the  hand  of  man  contains  latent  capaci- 
ties and  powers  which  are  unused  by  savages,  and  must 
have  been  even  less  used  by  palasolithic  man  and  his   still 
ruder  predecessors.     It  has  all  the  appearance  of  an  organ 
pre])ared  for  the  use  of  civilized  man,  and  one  which  was 
required  to  render  civilisKition  possible."     Again,  speaking 
of  the  "  wonderful  power,  range,  flexibility,  and  sweetness 
of  the  musical  sounds  producible  by  the  human  larj'nx,"  he 
adds  :  "  The  habits  of  savages  give  no  indicalion  of  how  this 
faculty  could  have  been  developed  by  Natural  Selection ; 
because  it  is  never  required  or  used  by  them.     The  singing 
of  savages  is    a  more    or  less  monotonous  howling,   and 
the  females  seldom  sing  at  all.     Savages  certainly  never 
choose  their  wives  for  fine  voices,  but  for  rude  health,  and 
strength,  and  physical  beauty.     Sexual   selection  could  not 
therefore  have  developed  this  wonderful  power,  which  only 
comes  into  play  among  civilized  people.     It  seems  as  if 
the  organ  had  been  prepared  in  anticipation  of  the  future 
progress  of  man,  since  it  contains  latent  capacities  which 
are  useless  to  him  in  his  earlier  condition.     The  delicate 
correlations  of  structure  that  give  it  such  marvellous  j)owers, 
could  not  therefore  have  been  acquired  by  means  of  Natural 
Selection." 

To  this  may  be  added  the  no  less  wonderful  faculty  in 
the  ear  of  appreciating  delicate  musical  tones,  and  the 
harmony  of  chords. 

It  matters  not  what  part  of  the  organ  subserves  this 
function,  but  it  has  been  supposed  that  it  is  ministered  to 
by  the  fibres  of  Corti.''^  Now  it  can  hardly  be  contended 
that  the  preservation  of  any  race  of  men  in  the  struggle  for 
life  could  have  depended  on  such  an  extreme  delicacy  and 

"  See  Prof.  Huxley's  "Lessons  in  Elementary  Physiology,"  p.  218. 


XII.] 


THEOLOGY   AND   EVOLUTION. 


297 


refinement  of  the  internal  ear"— .1  perfection  only  fully  ex- 
ercised in  the  enjoyment  and  aj^preciation  of  the  most  ex- 
quisite musical  i)erformances.  Here,  surely,  we  have  an  in- 
stance  of  an  organ  preformed,  ready  beforeliand  fur  such 


riDBES   or  OORTI. 


action  as  could  never  by  itself  have  been  the  cause  of  its 
development — the  action  havinf^  only  been  subsequent,  not 
anterior.  The  author  is  not  aware  what  may  be  the  mi- 
nute structure  of  the  internal  car  in  the  highest  apes,  but  if 
(as  from  analogy  is  probable)  it  is  much  as  in  man,  then  a 
fortiori  we  have  an  instance  of  anticipatory  development 
of  a  most  marked  and  unmistakable  kind.  And  this  is  not 
all.  There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  any  animal  besides 
man  aj)preciates  musical  harmony.  It  is  certain  tliat  no 
other  on(^  produces  it. 

Mr.  Wallace  also  \irgc3  objections  drawn  from  the  origin 
of  some  of  man's  mental  faculties,  such  as  "  the  cajiacity  to 
form  ideal  conceptions  of  space  and  time,  of  eternity  and 
infinity — the  capacity  for  intense  artistic  feelings  of  i)len8- 
ure,  in  form,  color,  and  composition — and  for  those  abstract 
notions  of  form  and  number  which  render  geometry  and 

"  It  may  be  objected,  perlmpa,  that  excessive  dclicrtcy  of  the  cnr 
might  have  been  produced  by  havlnp;  to  guard  ngainst  the  approach  of 
enemies,  some  savages  being  remarkable  for  their  keenness  of  hearing  at 
great  distances.  Ibit  the  perceptions  of  inlnisUfj  and  quaHt;i  of  sound 
arc  very  different.  Some  jiersons  who  liavo  an  extremely  acute  car  for 
delicate  sounds,  and  who  are  fond  of  music,  have  yet  an  iucapacily  for 
detecting  whether  an  instrumcat  is  shghlly  out  of  tunc 


298  THE  GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

arithmetic  possible,"  also    from  the  origin  of  the    moral 


sense." 


The  validity  of  these  objections  is  fully  conceded  by  the 
author  of  this  book,  but  he  woukl  push  it  nmch  further,  and 
contend  (as  has  been  now  repeatedly  said)  that  another 
law,  or  other  laws,  than  "  Natural  Selection  "  have  deter- 
niineil  the  evolution  of  all  organic  forms,  and  of  inorganic 
forms  also.  And  it  must  be  contended  tliat  Mr.  Wallace, 
in  order  to  be  quite  self-consistent,  should  arrive  at  the  very 
same  conclusion,  inasmuch  as  he  is  inclined  to  trace  all  phe- 
nomena to  the  action  of  superhuman  avill.  He  says :  ''*  If 
therefore  we  have  traced  one  force,  however  minute,  to  an 
oiigin  in  our  own  will,  while  we  have  no  knowledge  of  any 
other  primary  cause  of  force,  it  does  not  seem  an  improbable 
conclusion  that  all  force  may  be  will-force ;  and  thus  that 
the  whole  universe  is  not  merely  dependent  on,  but  actually 
zs,  the  WILL  of  higher  intelligences,  or  of  one  Supreme  In- 
telligence." 

If  there  is  really  evidence,  as  Mr.  Wallace  believes,  of 
the  action  of  an  overruling  intelligence  in  the  evolution  of 
the  "  human  form  divine  ;  "  if  we  may  go  so  far  as  this,  then 
surely  an  analogous  action  may  well  be  traced  in  the  pro- 
duction of  the  horse,  the  camel,  or  the  dog,  so  largely  iden- 
tified with  human  wants  and  requirements.  And  if  from 
otiier  than  physical  considerations  we  may  believe  that  such 
action,  though  undemonstrable,  has  been  and  is ;  then 
(reflecting  on  sensible  phenomena  the  theistic  light  derived 
from  psychical  facts)  we  may,  in  the  language  of  Mr.  Wal- 
lace, "  see  indications  of  that  power  in  facts  which,  by  them- 
selves, would  not  serve  to  prove  its  existence."  " 

Mr.  Murphy,  as  has  been  said  before,  finds  it  necessary 
to  accept  the  wide-spread  action  of  "  intelligence  "  as  the 
agent  by  which  all  organic  forms  have  been  called  forth 

"  Loc.  cit.,  pp.  351,  352.  "  Lqc.  cit.,  p.  368. 

«>  Loc.  cit.,  p.  350. 


XII.]  THEOLOGY  AND  EVOLUTION  209 

from  tlic  inorp^anic.  But  all  science  tends  to  unity,  nnd  tliis 
tendency  makes  it  reasonable  to  extend  to  all  physical  ex- 
istences a  mode  of  formation  which  we  may  have  evidence 
for  in  any  one  of  them.  It  therefore  makes  it  reasonable 
to  extend,  if  possible,  the  very  same  agency  which  we  find 
operating  in  the  field  of  biology,  also  to  the  inorganic  world. 
If  on  the  grounds  brought  forward  the  action  of  intelligeiuj^ 
may  be  aflirmed  in  the  production  of  man's  ])odily  structure, 
it  becomes  probable  a  priori  that  it  may  also  Ix;  prcdicatt'd 
of  the  formative  action  by  which  has  been  produced  the  ani- 
mals which  minister  to  him,  and  all  .organic  life  whatsoever. 
Na}',  more,  it  is  then  congruous  to  expect  analogous  action 
in  the  development  of  crystalline  and  colloidal  structures, 
and  in  that  of  all  chemical  compositions,  in  geological  evo- 
lutions, and  the  formation  not  only  of  this  earth,  but  of  the 
solar  system  and  whole  sidereal  universe. 

If  such  really  be  the  direction  in  which  physical  science, 
philosophically  considered,  points  ;  if  intelligence  may  thus 
be  seen  to  preside  over  the  evolution  of  each  system  of 
worlds  and  the  unfolding  of  every  blade  of  grass — this 
grand  result  harmonizes  indeed  with  the  teachings  of  failh 
that  God  acts  and  concurs,  in  the  natural  order,  with  those 
laws  of  the  material  universe  which  were  not  only  instituted 
by  His  will,  but  are  sustained  by  Ilis  concurrence ;  and  we 
are  thus  enabled  to  discern  in  the  natural  order,  however 
darkly,  the  Divine  Author  of  Nature — Ilitn  in  whom  "  wo 
live,  and  move,  and  have  our  being." 

But  if  this  view  is  accepted,  then  it  is  no  longer  abso-  -^ 
lutely  necessary  to  suppose  that  any  action  different  in  kind 
took  place  in  the  production  of  man's  body,  from  that  which 
took  place  in  the  production  of  the  bodies  of  other  animals, 
and  of  the  whole  material  universe. 

Of  course,  if  it  ca?i  be  demonstrated  that  that  difference 
which  Mr.  Wallace  asserts  really  exists,  it  is  i)lain  that  we 


300  THE  GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

tlien  have  to  do  with  facts  not  only  harmonizing  with  re- 
ligion, but,  as  it  were,  preaching  and  proclaiming  it. 
^  It  is  not,  however,  necessary  for  Christianity  that  any 
such  view  should  prevail,  Man,  according  to  the  old  scho- 
lastic definition, is  "a  rational  animal  "  (animal  rationale)^ 
and  hisjinimidjty^^s^chs^^ 

though  inseparably  joined,  during  life,  in  one  common  ])(jr- 
sonality.  This  animal  body  must  have  had  a  dillerent 
source  from  that  of  tlie  spiritual  soul  which  informs  it,  from 
the  distinctness  of  the  two  orders  to  which  those  two  ex- 
istences severally  belong. 

Scripture  seems  plainly  to  indicate  this   when  it  says 
that  "  God    made  man    from  the   dust  of  th6   earth,   and 
breathed  into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life."    This  is  a  plaint 
and  direct  statement  that  man's  body  was  not  created  in 
the  primary  and  absolute  sense  of  the  word,  but  was  evolved 
from  prei3xisting  material  (symbolized  by  the  tenn  "  dust 
of  the  earth"),  and  was  therefore  only  derivatively  created, 
i.  e.,  by  the  operation  of  secondary  laws.     His  soid,  on  the  y 
other  hand,  was  created  in  quite  a  dilferent  way,  not  hy  any 
preexisting  means,   external  to  God  Himself,  but  by  the 
direct   action  of  the  Almighty,  symbolized   by  the   term 
"  breathing  :  "  the  very  form  adopted  by  Christ,  when  con- 
ferring the  supernatural  powers  and  graces  of  the  Cln-istian 
dispensation,  and  a  form  still  daily  used  in  the  rites  and 
ceremonies  of  the  Church. 

That  the  first  man  should  have  had  this  double  orijrin 
agrees  with  what  we  now  experience.  For  supposing  each 
human  soul  to  be  directly  and  immediately  created,  yet 
each  human  body  is  evolved  by  the  ordinary  operation  of 
natural  physical  laws. 

Prof.  Flower,  in  his  Introductory  Lecture  "  (p.  20)  to 
liis  course  of  Ilunterian  Lectures  for  1870,  well  observes  : 
"  Whatever  man's  place  may  be,  either  in  or  out  of  Nature, 

«^  Published  by  John  Churchill 


XII]         THEOLOGY  AND  EVOLUTION. 


301 


his 


wliatcvor  hopes,  or  fears,  or  feelings  about  liimsclf  or  h 
race  lie  may  have,  we  all  of  us  admit  that  these  are  quite 
uninfluenced  by  our  knowledge  of  the  fact  that  each  indi- 
vidual man  comes  into  the  world  by  the  ordinary  processes 
of  generation,  according  to  the  same  laws  which  apply  to 
the  development  of  all  organic  beings  wdiatever,  that  every 
part  of  him  which  can  come  under  the  scrutiny  of  the  anat- 
omist or  naturalist,  has  been  evolved  according  to  these 
regular  laws  from  a  simple  minute  ovum,  indistinguishable 
to  our  senses  from  that  of  any  of  the  inferior  animals.  If 
this  be  so — if  man  is  what  he  is,  notwithstanding  tlie  cor- 
poreal mode  of  origin  of  the  individual  man,  so  he  will  as- 
suredly be  neither  less  nor  more  than  man,  whatever  may 
be  shown  regarding  the  cor}X)real  origin  of  the  whole  race, 
whether  this  was  from  the  dust  of  the  earth,  or  by  the  modi- 
fication of  some  prei3xisting  animal  form." 

Mjjjijsjndjied^omjioundj  in  him  two  distinct  orders  of 
being  impinge  and  mingle  ;  and  with  this  an  origin  from 
two  concurrent  modes  of  action  is  congruous,  and  might  be 
expected  a  priori.  At  the  same  time  as  the  "  soul "  is 
"  the  form  of  the  body,"  the  former  might  be  expected  to 
modify  the  latter  into  a  structure  of  harmonj-  and  beauty 
standing  nlonc  in  the  organic  world  of  Nature.  Also  that, 
with  the  full  perfection  and  beauty  of  that  soul,  attained  l)y  . 
the  concurrent  action  of  " Nature  "  and  "Grace,"  a  char- 
acter would  be  fonned  like  nothing  else  whicli  is  visil)lc 
in  this  world,  and  having  a  mode  of  action  difTerent,  inas- 
much as  complementary  to  all  inferior  modes  of  action. 

Something  of  this  is  evident  even  to  those  who  approach 
the  subject  from  the  point  of  view  of  physical  science  only. 
Thus  Mr.  Wallace  observes,"  that  on  his  view  man  is  to  1)C 
placed  "apart,"  as  not  only  the  head  and  culminating  point 
of  the  grand  series  of  organic  Nature,  but  as  in  some  dcgn^e 
a  new  a?id  distinct  order  of  being.'*.  From  those  infinitely 
«2  Natural  Selection,  p.  324.        "  The  italics  are  not  Mr.  WaUace'a. 


302  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Ciup. 

remote  ages  ^vhen  the  first  rudiments  of  organic  life  ap- 
peared upon  the  earth,  every  plant  and  every  animal  has 
been  subject  to  one  great  law  of  phybicul  change.  As  the 
earth  has  gone  through  its  grand  cycles  of  geological,  cli- 
niatal,  and  organic  j)rogTess,  every  form  of  life  has  been 
subject  to  its  irresistible  action,  and  has  been  continually 
but  imperceptibly  moulded  into  such  new  shapes  as  would 
preserve  their  harmony  with  the  ever-changing  universe. 
No  living  thing  could  escape  this  law  of  its  being ;  none 
(except,  perhaps,  the  simplest  and  most  rudimentary  organ- 
isms) could  remain  unchanged  and  live  amid  the  universal 
change  around  it." 

"  At  lengtli,  however,  there  came  into  existence  a  being 
in  whom  that  subtle  force  we  term  mind,  became  of  greater 
importance  than  his  mere  bodily  structure.  Though  with  a 
naked  and  unprotected  body,  this  gave  him  clothing  against 
the  varying  inclemencies  of  the  seasons.  Though  unable 
to  compete  with  the  deer  in  swiftness,  or  with  the  wild- 
bull  in  strength,  this  gave  him  weapons  with  which  to  ca])- 
ture  or  overcome  both.  Though  less  capable  than  most 
other  animals  of  livinfj  on  the  herbs  and  the  fruits  that  un- 
aided  Nature  supplies,  this  wonderful  faculty  taught  him  to 
govern  and  direct  Nature  to  his  own  benefit,  and  make  her 
produce  food  for  him  when  and  where  he  pleased.  From 
the  moment  when  the  first  skin  was  used  as  a  covering ; 
when  the  first  rude  spear  was  formed  to  assist  in  the  chase ; 
when  fire  was  first  used  to  cook  his  food ;  when  the  first 
seed  was  sown  or  shoot  planted,  a  grand  revolution  was 
ellected  in  Nature,  a  revolution  which  in  all  the  i)revious 
ages  of  the  earth's  history  had  had  no  parallel,  for  a  being 
had  arisen  who  was  no  longer  necessarily  subject  to  change 
with  the  changing  universe,  a  being  who  was  in  some 
degree  superior  to  Nature,  inasmuch  as  he  knew  how  to 
control  and  regulate  her  action,  and  could  keep  himself  in 
harmony  with  her,  not  by  a  change  in  body,  but  by  an  ad- 
vance in  mind." 


XII.]  THEOLOGY  AND  EVOLUTION.  303 

"On  tins  view  of  his  special  nttributea,  \vc  may  arlrtiit 

*  lliat  he  is  indeed  a  being  apart.'    Man  has  not  only  csrapod 

*  Natural  Selection'  himself,  but  he  is  actually  al)lc  to  take 
away  some  of  that  power  from  Nature  which  before  his  a|>- 
pearance  she  universally  exercised.  We  can  anticipate  tiie 
time  when  the  earth  will  produce  only  cultivated  plants 
and  domestic  animals;  when  man's  selection  sliall  have  sii|>- 
planted  *  Natural  Selection;'  and  when  tlie  ocean  ^v  ill  Ixj 
the  only  domain  in  which  that  power  can  be  exerted." 

Baden  Powell"  observes  on  this  subject:  "Tiie  relation 
of  the  animal  man  to  the  intellectual,  moral,  and  spiritual 
man,  resembles  that  of  a  crystal  slumbering  in  its  native 
quarry  to  the  satne  crystal  mounted  in  the  jwlarizing  appa- 
ratus of  the  philosopher.  Tlie  difference  is  not  in  phvsiral 
Nature,  but  in  investing  that  Nature  with  a  new  and  higher 
application.  Its  continuity  with  the  material  world  remains 
the  same,  but  a  new  relation  is  developed  in  it,  and  it  claims 
kindred  with  ethereal  matter  and  with  celestial  liglit." 

This  well  expresses  the  distinction  between  the  merelv 
physical  and  the  hyperjihysical  natures  of  man,  and  the  sub- 
sumption  of  the  former  into  the  latter  which  dominates  it. 

The  same  author  in  speaking  of  man's  moral  and  spiritual 
nature  says,"  "  The  assertion  in  its  very  nature  and  essence 
refers  wholly  to  a  different  order  of  things,  apart  from 
and  transcending  any  material  ideas  whatsoever."  Again" 
he  adds,  "  In  proportion  as  man's  moral  superiority  is  held 
to  consist  in  attributed  not  of  a  material  or  coqwreal  kind 
or  origin,  it  can  signify  little  how  his  physical  nature  may 
have  originated." 

Now  physical  science,  as  such,  has  nothing  to  do  with 
the  soul  of  man,  which  is  hyperphysicjil.  That  such  an  en- 
tity exists,  that  the  correlated  physical  forces  go  through 
their  Protean  transformations,  have  their  persistent  ebb  and 

"  "  Unity  of  Worlds,"  Essny  ii.,  §  ii.,  p.  247. 

«5  Ibid.,  Essay  i.,  §  ii.,  p.  70.  "  Ibid.,  Essay  iii.,  §  iv.,  p.  4C6. 


301  THE  GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Ciup. 

flow  outside  of  tlie  world  of  will  and  self-conscious 
MOHAL  BEING,  arc  propositions  the  proofs  of  which  have  no 
place  in  this  work.  This  at  least  may  however  be  confi- 
dently afTn-raed,  that  no  reach  of  physical  science  in  any 
coming  century  will  ever  approach  to  a  demonstration  that 
countless  modes  of  being,  as  diflerent  from  each  otlier  as 
are  the  force  of  gravitation  and  conscious  maternal  love, 
may  not  coexist.  Two  such  modes  are  made  known  to  us 
by  our  natural  faculties  only  :  the  physical,  which  includes 
the  first  of  these  examples  ;  the  hyperphysical,  which  em- 
braces the  other.  For  those  who  accei)t  revelation,  a  third 
and  a  distinct  mode  of  being  and  of  action  is  also  made 
known,  namely,  the  direct  and  immediate,  or,  in  the  sense 
here  given  to  the  term,  the  supernatural.  An  analogous  re- 
lationship runs  through  and  connects  all  these  modes  of 
being  and  of  action.  The  higher  mode  in  each  case  em- 
ploys and  makes  use  of  the  lower,  the  action  of  which  it 
occasionally  susi)ends  or  alters,  as  gravity  is  suspended  by 
electro-magnetic  action,  or  the  living  energy  of  an  organic 
being  restrains  the  inter-actions  of  the  cliemical  allinities 
belonging  to  its  various  constituents. 

Thus  conscious  will  controls  and  directs  the  exercise  of 
the  vital  functions  according  to  desire,  and  moral  conscious- 
ness tends  to  control  desire  in  obedience  to  higher  dictates." 

•^  A  good  exposition  of  how  an  inferior  action  has  to  yield  to  one 
higher  is  given  by  Dr.  Newman  in  his  "  Lectures  on  University  Subjects," 
p.  372.  "  What  is  true  in  one  science,  is  dictated  to  us  indeed  according 
to  that  science,  but  not  according  to  another  science,  or  in  another  de- 
partment. 

"  What  is  certain  in  the  military  art,  has  force  in  the  military  art, 
but  not  in  statesmanship;  and  if  statesmanship  be  a  higher  department 
of  action  than  war,  and  enjoins  the  contrary,  it  has  no  force  on  o\ir  re- 
ception and  obedience  at  all.  And  so  what  is  true  in  medical  science, 
might  in  all  cases  be  carried  out,  were  man  a  mere  animal  or  brute  with- 
out a  soul ;  but  since  he  is  a  rational,  responsible  being,  a  thing  may  bo 
ever  so  true  in  medicine,  yet  may  be  unlawful  in  fact,  in  consequence  of 


XII.J  TDEOLOGY   AND   EVOLUTION.  305 

The  action  of  living  organisms  dojicnda  upon  and  subsumes 
the  laws  of  inorganic  matter.  Similarly  the  actions  of  ani- 
mal life  depend  upon  and  subsume  the  laws  of  organic  mat- 
ter. In  the  same  way  the  actions  of  a  self-conscious  moral 
agent,  such  as  man,  depend  upon  and  subsume  the  laws  of 
animal  life.  When  a  part  or  the  whole  scries  of  these  natu- 
ral actions  is  altered  or  suspended  by  the  intervention  of 
action  of  a  still  higher  order,  we  have  then  a  "  mirach\" 

]n  this  way  we  find  a  perfect  harmony  in  the  double  na- 
ture of  man,  his  rationality  making  use  of  and  subsuming 
liis  animality ;  his  soul  arising  from  direct  and  immediate 
creation,  and  his  body  being  formed  at  first  (as  now  in  each 
separate  individual)  by  derivative  or  secondary  creation, 
through  natural  laws.  By  such  secondary  creation,  i.  e.,  by 
natural  laws,  for  the  most  part  as  yet  unknown  but  con- 
trolled by  "  Natural  Selection,"  all  the  various  kinds  of  ani- 
mals and  plants  have  been  manifested  on  this  planet.  That 
Divine  action  has  concurred  and  concurs  in  these  laws  we 
know  by  deductions  from  our  primary  intuitions  ;  and  j^hys- 
ical  science,  if  unable  to  demonstrate  such  action,  is  at  least 
as  impotent  to  disprove  it.  Disjoined  from  these  deduc- 
tions, the  phenomena  of  the  universe  present  an  as]>cct  de- 
void of  all  that  appeals  to  the  loftiest  aspirations  of  man, 
that  which  stimulates  his  cfibrts  after  goodness,  and  pre- 
sents consolations  for  unavoidable  shortcomings.  Conjoined 
-with  these  same  deductions,  all  the  harmony  of  physicjil  Na- 
ture and  the  constancy  of  its  laws  are  preserved  unimpaired, 
while  the  reason,  the  conscience,  and  the  aesthetic  instincts, 
are  alike  gratified.  We  have  thus  a  true  reconciliation  of 
science  and  religion,  in  which  each  gains  and  neither  loses, 
one  being  complementary  to  the  other. 

Some  apology  is  due  to  the  reader  for  certain  observa- 
tions and  arguments  which  have  been  here  advanced,  and 
the  higher  law  of  morals  and  rcligiou  coming  to  some  dilTcrcnt  couclu- 
slon." 


306  THE   GENESIS  OF  SPECIES.  [Chap. 

■Nvbioh  have  little  in  the  shape  of  novelty  to  recommend 
them.  But,  after  all,  novelty  can  hardly  be  predicated  of 
the  views  here  criticised  and  opposed.  Some  of  these  seem 
almost  a  return  to  the  "fortuitous  concourse  of  atoms" 
of  Democritus,  and  even  the  very  theory  of  *'  Natural  Se- 
lection" itself— a  "survival  of  the  fittest" — was  in  part 
thought  out  not  hundreds  but  thousands  of  years  ago.  Op- 
ponents of  Aristotle  maintained  that  by  the  accidental  oc- 
currence of  combinations,  organisms  have  been  preserved 
and  perpetuated  such  as  final  causes,  did  they  exist,  would 
have  brought  about,  disadvantageous  combinations  or  vari- 
ations being  speedily  exterminated.  "  For  when  the  very 
same  combinations  happened  to  be  produced  which  the  law 
of  final  causes  would  have  called  into  being,  those  combina- 
tions which  proved  to  be  advantageous  to  the  organism 
■were  preserved ;  while  those  which  were  not  advantageous 
perished,  and  still  perished  like  the  miuotaurs  and  sphinxes 
of  Empedocles."  " 

In  conclusion,  the  author  ventures  to  hope  that  this 
treatise  may  not  be  deemed  useless,  but  have  contributed, 
however  slightly,  toward  clearing  the  way  for  pcnice  and 
conciliation,  and  for  a  more  ready  perception  of  the  harmony 
which  exists  between  those  deductions  from  our  primary 
intuitions  before  alluded  to,  and  the  teachings  of  physical 
science,  as  far,  that  is,  as  concerns  the  evolution  of  organic 
forms — tJie  genesis  of  species. 

The  aim  has  been  to  support  the  doctrine  that  these 
species  have  been  evolved  by  ordinary  natural  laws  (for  the  V 
most  part  unknown)  controlled  by  the  subordinate  action 
of  "Natural  Selection,"  and  at  the  same  time   to  remind 

«8  Quoted  from  tlie  Ramhhr  of  March,  1860,  p.  3Gt :  ""On-ou  p.\v  oZv 
inavTa  avvf^r}^  uxrirep  k^u  el  '4viK(i  rov  iyiviTO,  ravra  /xeu  dcnidi]  a-rrh  rod 
avTOfJLoiTov  (TvardvTa  iniT-qSiiufS,  '6(Ta  he  fir]  outws  dffa>\€To  /col  andWvTat^ 
KadaKfp  'E/iTTtSo/cA^s  Keyu  to  fiouyeyrj  /col  a.i'Spojrpupa." — AuiST.  Phys.^ 
ii.  c.  8.  . 


XII.]  THEOLOGY  AND  EVOLUTION.  307 

some  tliat  there  is  and  can  be  absolutely  nothing  in  pliypi- 
cal  science  which  forbids  them  to  regard  those  natural  laws 
as  acting  "vvith  the  Divine  concurrence  and  in  obedience  to 
a  creative  fiat  originally  imposed  on  the  primeval  Cosmos, 
*'  in  the  beginning,"  by  its  Creator,  its  Upholder,  and  its 
Lord. 


II^DEX. 


A. 

Aahd-Vark,  189. 

Al.soluto  (nation,  260. 

Aniutliouletno,  iOl . 

AcmxmIoiiI  teith,  102. 

Acts  lonnerly  nionil,  210. 

Acts  inuterially  iiionil,  'JIO. 

Adductor  muscles,  1(2. 

Afj'ussiz,  Prof.,  2SS. 

Ajjcd,  care  o£,  2(H5. 

A^'grcfnitional  thcorj',  177. 

Al^oa  Hay,  cat  o<^  112. 

Allaiit«)Ls,  O."). 

Amazons,  butterflies  of,  99. 

Auiazons,  cholera  iu  the,  206. 

Americmi  butterflies,  41. 

American  mai/e,  114. 

Amcricuji  monkeys,  241. 

Amiuru.s,  101. 

Amiiiiibia,  123. 

Analoj,'ical  relations,  171. 

A  neon  sheep,  114,  117,  242. 

Andrew  Miuiay,  Mr.,  'JC. 

Anj,'oi-ft  cat.s,  lOl). 

Animal's  suflerings,  277. 

Ankle  l)ones,  172. 

Annelids  undergoing  fission,  183,  22G. 

AnnuKisa,  eye  of,  'JO. 

Anopiotbeiium,  124. 

Anteater,  97. 

Antechinus,  95. 

Antenna,  of  or«'ldd,  69. 

Anllin>|>omorplii.sih,  274. 

Ape's  wxual  charaetei-»,  01. 

Apostles'  (.'reed,  200. 

Apjiendages  of  iol>6ter,  175. 

Ajiitendages  of  Normandy  pigs,  118. 

Al)l)endagea  of  turkey,  114. 

Ajipendix,  vermiform,  Wk 

Ai>preclation  of  Mr.  Darwin,  22. 

Apterj'x,  19,  8a. 

Aqueous  Immor,  89. 

Aquinas,  St.  Thomas,  30,  280,  282. 

Arclii'gosaurus,  149. 

Arclieojiteryx,  86. 

Arcturuji,  207. 


Argyll,  Duko  of;  27,  293. 

Aristotle,  806. 

Armadillo,  extinct  kind,  124. 

Arlhriti.s,  rheumatic,  197. 

Artiodactylo  foot,  124. 

Asa  Cray,  Dr.,  270,  272,  277. 

Asceticism,  207. 

Ascidians,  placental  structure,  93. 

Assumj>tions  of  Mr.  Darwin,  28. 

Astronomical  objections,  150. 

Auditory  organ,  b6. 

Augustine,  St,  30,  281. 

Auivlius,  Marcus,  221. 

Avian  limb,  121. 

Avicularia.  93. 

Axolotl,  179. 

Aye-Aye,  122. 

Aylesbury  ducks,  249. 


B. 

Backbone,  149, 176. 

IJacon,  Koger,  2S3. 

IJaleen,  54. 

ISaiidioo  insect,  45. 

liandicoot,  SO. 

Bartlett,  Mr.  A.  D..  140,  2-19. 

IJaitlett,  Mr.  E^  200. 

liasil,  St.,  30. 

Lastiiui,  Dr.  11.  Charlton,  129,  234,  253,  288. 

Hat,  wing  of,  77. 

iJates,  Mr.,  41,  98,  101. 

IJats,  12:}. 

IJcakh,  96. 

HeaslM,  suifedngs  of,  200. 

]J<auty  ofhhell-llsh,  07. 

Ike  oichid,  08. 

IMrd,  wings  of,  77. 

IJirds  compared  with  rei>files,  83. 

]{ird's-liead  ]ir(M'iK.ses,  90. 

IJirds  of  Panidl.se,  KM. 

IJirlh  of  individual  and  species,  14. 

iJivalves,  92. 

Hlack  sheep,  136. 

IJlack-shouldered  peacock,  114. 

IJladebone,  83. 

Bloud-vesseb,  196. 


INDEX. 


309 


Blyth,  Mr.,  114,  11)5. 

IJoncs  of  skull.  1G7. 

IJonnct,  M.,  'A'li. 

IJoiwlck,  Mr.,  212. 

"  JJoots  "  of  pipoon."*,  195. 

Uroathiifp,  iiKKliflod  power  of^  118. 

15  reeding  of  lions,  249. 

«  rill,  49. 

]{  roecoli,  variety  of,  114. 

Jlryozo.a,  93. 

IJiicluK-r,  Dr.,  290. 

Hmld,  Dr.  \V.,  198. 

IJiitron,  232. 

Hiill-do-j's  itistinrt,  270. 

I'.nrt.  I'rof.  Wilder,  195,  198. 

JJiKtellUes,  41. 

l{iitter(llea,  AriiaTionlan,  99. 

iliitterlUes,  Aiiieric.'iii,  41. 

lliittortiles  of  Indinii  region,  97. 

IJnttertlies,  tills  of,  99. 

Buttcrtly,  Leaf,  48. 


c. 

CAOOTTTfl,  103. 

Ca'cuin,  96. 

Calamarles,  90. 

Cambrian  deposits,  151. 

Capo  ant-eater,  1S9. 

Caroofftyed,  200. 

Carinate  binl.s,  83. 

Carnivora,  81. 

Carnivorous  dentition,  124. 

Carp  fishes,  100. 

Carpal  bones,  120,  194. 

Carpenter,  Dr.,  129. 

Carpus,  192,  193. 

Cases  of  conseience,  215. 

Cassowary,  8!}. 

Catasetutn,  09. 

Causes  of  sjiroad  of  Darsvinisui,  22. 

Cebus,  241. 

Celebes,  butterflies  of,  99. 

Centetes,  102. 

Centipede,  79.  173. 

Cephalo|>oda,  87. 

(Jeroxvlus  laeerntus,  49. 

CeUieea,  51,97,  119,  122,  188. 

(ihanees  atralnst  few  individuals,  70. 

C'haraelnhlie,  1(>0. 

Clielro{?aIeus,  172. 

Clietnlis,  250. 

(Mdekens,  mortality  of  hybrids,  188. 

Clilo>,'!ossa,  179. 

C;iiln>mv8,  122. 

ClioleriC  200. 

Choroid,  89. 

Chrotdc  rheum.atisin,  197. 

Clreiimelslon,  227. 

Clarlas,  101. 

Climate,  clfeets  of.  112. 

Climblnjf  plants.  122. 

Cl(K'k-tlilnking  ihiustration,  266. 

Col)ra,  02. 

Cockle,  92. 

Cod,  51. 


Colloidal  matter,  283. 

Conceptions.  symlM)lie,  207. 

Conneelleul  footsteps,  It.'i. 

Conneetlnp  links,  suppoH<»<L,  122. 

Cons<"lenee.  rases  of,  215. 

Conselentldus  Papuan,  212. 

Cope,  IVof..  Kt.  14 1. 

Coracold,  of  birds  and  r<'|)tllo8,  84. 

Cornea,  90. 

Cornelius  h  I>aplde,  2'^2. 

Correlation,  laws  of.  IHS. 

Corti,  llbres  of.  06,  290. 

Corvanthes.  fiS. 

Costa,  M.,  li)2. 

Cranial  segments,  ISO. 

Creation,  201,  2(i9 

Creator,  27,  20'^. 

Crewl,  Apostles',  200. 

Crocodile,  55. 

Croll,  Mr.,  151. 

Crusticeo.  93,  174. 

Crvptixranthus,  100. 

Crystalline  matter,  '1^'i. 

Crvstals  of  snow,  2iH). 

Cuttle-nsbe%  87,  88. 

CuTler,  124. 

Cyprlnolds,  100. 

Cytherldea,  92. 


Dana,  Prof.,  103. 

Darvvln,  Mr   Charles,  14,  22,  25,  27.  S3.  .3.5, 

89,  40.  48,  ^5,  57,  59,  00,  0^,  09.  72,  7s.  Uri, 
108,  112,  114,  121.  i:V<,  140.  143,  152.  \:A, 
159,  101,  165,  195,  202,  201.  211,  22:<.  224, 
229,  2JJ2,  2.'«.  287,  243,  250,  268,  270,  274, 
275,  292,  293. 

Datum  tatul.o.  115. 

Delhi,  davsat,  112. 

Del|)lno,  'Siirnor,  227,  228,  230. 

Demoerltus,  232.  293.  300. 

Densltv  of  air  for  breathint:,  118. 

Dentition,  carnivorous,  124. 

Derivation,  2.54. 

Derivative  creaUon,  263,  800. 

Deslpn.  270. 

Devotion,  207. 

Dlbmnrhlat.a,  R8. 

Dllllcultles  of  problem  of  sp'vlOc  origin,  18. 

Dl>,'lts,  supernumerary,  187,  194. 

Dlpit.s,  turtles,  121. 

DhuorpbcMlon,  84. 

Dlnornls,  8:). 

Dtnosaurla,  8.5. 

Diseased  pelvis,  197. 

Dissemination  of  bckIs,  73. 

Doris,  181. 

Dotheboys  Hall.  2'^9. 

Dnv,on,  the  tlying,  77,  172. 

Dni!,'on-lly,  91. 

Dmuphts!  37. 

Duek-bllU^l  jilafvpus,  1S9. 

Dujronp.  5t,  190. 

Dukeof  Arj.'vll,27,  298. 

Dyspepsia,  215. 


810 


INDEX. 


Ear,  8T. 

luir,  formation  ol^  03. 

Early  soecblization,  125. 

Ki-hliiouermala,  56. 

Kchiuoldea,  6o. 

Ethliiops,  lOi. 

Erblnorlilims,  188. 

Echinus,  55. 

Eixmoiiiy,  Fucglan  political,  206. 

Eciujino,  l'J7. 

EdentJita,  ISS. 

E;;yi>tii>n  iiioiiiimcntA,  152.  • 

KliLsiiiobnuiclis,  15.'^. 

EUmjw  uiul  kiic'o  iiUcctlona,  193. 

Eiupwloclos,  80C. 

Eocene  uii'^ulutu,  125. 

Eolls,  l!>4. 

E(|uiis,  IGl. 

Erlculufl,  162. 

Elides,  202. 

Elides  Dc.sionpchamps,  112. 

Eurypterlilii,  153,  1S5. 

Eutroplus,  1G2. 

Everett,  Kov.  U.,  112. 

Evolution  requires  geometrical  increaaa  of 

time,  153. 
Eye.  «9. 

Eye,  formation  oC,  64. 
Eye  of  trilobites,  U\). 


F. 

Fabrk,  M.,  69. 

Feulher-legved  breeds,  196. 

Feejeeaiis,  214. 

FerlillzatlDri  of  orchids,  69. 

"  Flat  jllstUl!^  mat  w^■luu^"  209. 

Fibres  of  Cortl,  66,  'JtM. 

Final  misery,  208. 

Flii(,'er  of  I'otto,  119. 

Fish,  llylnff,  77. 

Fishes,  frcsh-watcr,  159. 

FLshes,  thoracic  and  ju<,'ular,  51,  155. 

Fl.xity  of  position  of  limbs,  61. 

Flat-tlshes,  49,  ISO. 

Flexibility  of  bodily  organization,  degrees 

of;  183. 
Fle.vlbllity  of  mind,  2*4. 
Flies,  horned,  107. 
Fli;,'ht  of  spiders,  78. 
Flounder,  50. 

Flower,  Prof.,  178,  248,  800. 
Fly,  orchid,  63. 
Flying-dragon,  77,  172. 
Flylug-flsh,  77. 
Fa'tal  teeth  of  whales,  19. 
Food,  effects  on  pigs,  113. 
Footsteps  of  Connecticut,  145. 
Foramlnifera,  200. 
Formally  moral  acts,  210. 
Formation  of  eye  and  oar,  64. 
Forms,  substiintiaL,  200,  290. 
Four-gilled  Oephaloiwds,  89. 
Fowls,  white  ailk,  136. 


French  theatrical  ondlonco,  218. 
Fresh-water  ILshes,  15'J. 
Frogs,  Chilian  and  Kuropean,  163. 
Fucgo,  Terra  del,  206. 


C. 

Oalaqo,  172. 

Galaxlas,  161. 

Galeus  vulgaris,  186. 

<Jalton,  Mr.  F.,  Ill,  127,244. 

Oascoven,  Mr.,  196. 

Ga vials,  55. 

Gegcnbaur,  Prof,  190,  193. 

Gemmules,  22'). 

Generative  system,  Ita  sensitiveness,  250. 

Genesis  of  morals,  216. 

Geographical  distribution,  153. 

Geographical  distribution  e.vpLUuod  by  Nat- 

ui-ul  Selection,  18. 
Geometrical  Increments  of  time,  153. 
Geotrla,  161. 
Giniffe,  neck  of,  86. 
Gizz;ir(l-like  stomacli,  96. 
Gliicial  epoch,  164. 
Glyi)todon,  124. 
Godron,  Dr.,  115, 
Goose,  its  intlexibility,  133. 
Gapport,  Mr.,  115. 
Gould,  Mr.,  102. 

Grasshopper,  Great  Shielded,  103. 
Gray,  Dr.  Asa,  270,  272,  277. 
Great  Ant-eater,  116. 
Great  SalamandiT,  186. 
Great  Shielded  (Jrasshoppor,  103. 
Greyhounds  in  Mexico,  113. 
Greyhounils,  time  for  evolution  o^  152. 
Guinea-fowl,  134. 
Guinea-pig,  140. 
GUuthor,  Dr.,  159, 100, 186. 


II. 

ITAIBT.E99  D009,  183,  190. 

Hamilton,  Sir  William,  267. 

Harmony,  nmsical,  66,  296. 

Heart  in  birds  and  reptiles,  172. 

Hegel,  232. 

Heliconidui,  41. 

Hell,  203. 

Heptanchus,  186. 

Herbert  Spencer,  Mr.,  83,  40,  80,  86,  IIT, 

180,  182,  1^,  186,  199,  203,  216,  217,  219, 

233,  2^4;),  261,  262,  264,  267. 
Hessian  llies,  184. 
Heterobranchus,  160. 
Hewitt,  Mr.,  133,  195. 
Hexanchus,  186. 
Hlpparlon,  111,  143. 
Homogeny,  172. 

Homology,  bilateral  or  lateral,  170,  179. 
Homology,  meaning  of  term,  19,  170. 
Homology,  serial,  173. 
Homology,  vertical,  179. 
Homoplasy,  173. 
Honey-suckers,  104. 


INDEX. 


311 


Ilorxl  of  oohrfi,  02. 
llook-MIU'd  (liicka,  114. 
Hooker,  Dr.,  KU. 
Horned  files,  lOT. 
Horny  plates,  M,  51. 
IForny  Ptoinach,  90. 
Hdniiin  hrvnx,  07,  296. 
Hiiini)hrv,>rof.,  177. 
Hiitton,  Mr.  U.  Jlolt,  210,  21 .. 
Huxley,  Prof.,  80,  82,  8-t,  85,  \m,  11T,  12-1, 
1  H,  MT),  l.M.  IT).'),  177,  180,  187,  240,  2G3. 
Hyhrldfl,  morfjillty  of,  188. 
Hydroeyonina,  100. 
Jlyperpliwslcal  actloD,  209. 
Uyrax,  193. 


I. 

IriTTnTorflinA,  123. 

lehtlivosftiinis,  92,  120,  140,  191. 

lehthyosl.s,  199. 

Imiano<lon,  84. 

Iltepltlmato  symbolie  roneoptlons,  267. 

Illustration  bv  eloek-thiuklng,  205. 

Imaclnal  disks,  6'^,  leil. 


lTni)!aeentAl  inaminals,  81,  82. 

Inciependent  origins,  107. 

Indian  biitterlly.  4.'}. 

Indian  region's  butternies,  98. 

Indians  and  cholera,  200. 

Individual,  meaning  of  word,  14. 

Infirm,  care  of^  200. 

Iiitluencc,  local,  90. 

Insect,  walkinjj-leaf,  4S. 

Insects,  walking-stick  and  bamboo,  45. 

Insectivora,  81. 

Insectivorous  mainmals,  102. 

Insectivorous  teeth,  81. 

Instinct  of  bull-dog,  270. 

Intennediato  forms,  142. 

Intuitions,  primary,  207. 

Irregularities  in  bloo<l-vc99ols,  lOfl. 

Isaria  felluo,  130, 


Jatanned  Peacock,  114. 
Jews,  227. 

Joints  of  backbone,  171, 176. 
Jugular  fishes,  51,  155. 
Julia  rostrana,  183. 

K. 

Kat.t.ima  iNAoniR,  44. 
Kallima  paralektA,  44. 
Kangaroo,  51,  SO. 
Kowalowskv,  95. 
Knee  and  elbow  nfTcctlons,  197. 


KOlliker,  Prof.,  118. 

li. 

TiAnTniNTiiiri,  100. 
LflbyHntho<lon,  118,  188. 


I.imnrck,  l.l. 

Ijinkester,  .Mr.  Rny,  107,  172. 

Jjirynx  of  kangaroo,  .'j.'i. 

Ijirynx  of  tnnii,  f)7,  2'.»6. 

Ijitcml  liomolotrv,  17s. 

Laws  of  correlnifon,  188. 

Leaf  buttcrlly,  41. 

I>>gltlmato  BymboUc  conccptloDii,  267. 

l^ns,  90. 

Le|»idosteu«,  180. 

Lepra,  197. 

I^wes,  Mr.  O.  H.,  103,  227,  229,  282. 

Ivoiiis,  St.,  221. 

I/)uiR  XV.,  2'.'0. 

I»ul9  XVI.,  220. 

Limb  genesis,  190. 

Limb  muscles,  19t. 

I.lmbs,  fixity  of  jxisltlon  of,  61. 

Limbs  of  lobster,  17."). 

I^lriks,  BU[ipose<l  coimectlng,  122. 

Lions,  brccdlnp,  219. 

Lions,  dlseastHl  pelvla,  190. 

Llama,  12.'1. 

Ix>cal  Influences,  97. 

I/)bster,  174. 

I>ong-tallcd  binl  of  Parndloe,  lOS. 

Lubb<Kk,  HIr.Iobn.  212,  219. 

Lyeli,  Sir  Chorlea,  on  dogs  118,  120. 


HI. 

MAcnATTiomTR,  124. 
Macmuchenl.a,  124. 
!Macropo<lldin,  82. 
Mncroscelldes,  82. 
Madagascar,  iri2.  ICO. 
Magnificent  binl  of  Paradiso,  100. 
Maize,  American,  114. 
Mammals,  SO. 

Mammary  gland  of  kangaroo,  .M. 
Mammary  gland,  origin  of^  00. 
•Man,  origin  of.  277. 
Man  reveals  (bxl,  207. 
^ian,  voice  of,  00. 
Manatee,  M    190. 
^fanchami)  nrcetl  of  sheep,  114. 
Manls,  ls9. 
^Ian'8  larj-nx,  07. 

Many  simultaneous  mo<lincatlons,  09. 
Marcus  Aun>llus,  221. 
Mnrtlneau,  Mr.  James,  214,  261. 
Mastacembclus,  159. 
Materially  monil  acts,  210. 
Matter,  crvstalllne  an<l  colloidal,  2"^ 
Meaning  of  word  "IndlvldunL"  14. 
Meaning  of  wonl  "sixdes."  14. 
Mechanical  theory  orsjiine,  173. 
Mediterranean  oyster,  102,  112. 
Meehan,  Mr.,  loi 
Mexico.  do;:s  in,  IH. 
Mill,  .John  Stuart,  '28,  2ft3,  207,  209. 
Mlmlcr>-,  20,  41. 
Miracle,  ao.'). 
Molars,  124. 
Mole,  190. 
MolUVe,  245. 
Mombat,  caU  at,  113. 


312 


INDEX. 


Monkeys,  American,  241. 

M ouster  proboscis,  137. 

Moral  uols, -210. 

Moriliiciu,  101.  _  .„«  ^„„ 

Muri.hy,  Mr.  J.  J.,  W,  66,  90, 117,  123, 129, 

161,  200.  2;56,  294,  299. 
Murray,  Mr.  Andrew,  96. 
Mu8  dcllaitulus,  90. 
MuscU'B  of  limbs,  194. 
Mussel,  92. 
Myrmocophaga,  06. 

N. 

NA8AT.18,  Semnopitueccs,  153. 

Nutlmsliis,  li;J. 

Nuturul  Selection,  shortly  stated,  IT. 

Nuudln,  M.  C,  115. 

Nautilus,  89. 

Nebular  evolution,  291. 

Ncckof4rlititris36. 

Newman,  tbe  Kev.  Dr.,  271,  285,  287,  804. 

New  Zt^aland  Crustacea,  104. 

New  Zoaliiud  llslies,  101. 

Niata,  cattle,  114. 

Nile  llshes,  160. 

Normandy  plff,  118. 

North  American  lish,  161. 

NycUccbua,  193. 

O. 

Obxect  of  book,  17. 

Objections  ftom  astronomy,  150. 

Octopods,  90. 

Olleiislve  remarks  of  Prof.  Vogt,  25. 

01.1,  care  of  the,  206. 

Old  Fui^lan  women,  206. 

Omygena.  exlt,'ua,  129. 

Ophiooei>halus,  lOO. 

Optic  lobes  of  pterodactyls,  64. 

Orchids,  100. 

Orchids,  Bee,  etc.,  63. 

Organ  of  hearing,  86. 

Organ  of  sight,  89. 

Organic  polarities.  200. 

Origin  of  man,  294. 

Orioles,  lot. 

Ornithoptera,  97. 

Ornithorhynchus,  189. 

Orthocenitidui,  184, 

Oryctcroi)US,  lb9. 

O-stracods,  92. 

Ostrlcli,  83. 

Otoliths,  87. 

Outlines  of  butterflies'  wings,  100. 

Owen,  Trof.,  SS,  110,  137,  2;«,  2.M,  291. 

Oybter  of  Mediterranean,  102,  112. 

Oysters,  92. 


P. 


Paget,  Mr.  J.,  197. 
Pala;otlierium,  121. 
Pallas,  140. 
Pangenesis,  81,  223. 


Pangolin,  190. 

Papilio  Hospiton,  99. 

Papilio  Machaon,  99. 

I'apilio  Ulysses,  9S. 

Papilionldie,  97. 

P.ipuan  morals,  212. 

I'artlunogenesis,  2iiS. 

Passilloi-a  gracilLs,  121. 

Pastrana,  Julia,  188. 

Pathological  polarities,  199. 

Pavo  nigripennls  114. 

Peiicock,  black-shunldered,  114. 

Peacock  intlexibility  of,  133, 

Pi'diceUariiL',  5T. 

Pelvis,  diseased,  197. 

Pendulous  ai)peudagos  of  turkey,  114. 

Peramelcs,  81. 

Perioi)hthalmu8,  100. 

Perissodactyl  imgulates,  124. 

Permian,  jugular  llsh,  165. 

Perodletlcu.s,  119,  193. 

Phabngers,  80. 

Pliasmidie,  103. 

Phyllopods,  93. 

Physiciil  actions,  269. 

"  Physiological  units,"  182,  284. 

Pigeons'  "  boots,"  195. 

Placental  mammals,  81. 

Placental  reproduction,  95. 

Plants,  tendrils  of,  121. 

Plates  of  baleen,  53. 

Platypus,  lb9. 

I'leiailes,  207. 

Pleslosaurus,  120,  147,  192. 

Pleurodont  dentition,  102. 

Plouronectlduj,  49,  180. 

Plotosus,  101. 

Poisoning  apparatus,  09. 

poisonous  8eri)ent.>4,  02. 

Polarities,  organic,  199,  200. 

Political  economy,  Fuegian,  206. 

Polyzoa,  93,  94. 

Pompadour,  Madame  de,  220. 

Poppy,  variety  of,  115. 

Porcupine,  190. 

Porto  Santo  rabbit,  114,  136. 

Potto,  119,  193. 

Pouched  bea.st3,  SO. 

Powell,  the  Uev.  liaden,  270,  278,  803. 

Premolars,  124. 

Pi-epotency,  133. 

Primary  intuitions,  207. 

Primitive  man,  218. 

Problem  of  origin  of  kinds,  18. 

Proboscis  monk^;y,  15.3. 

Proboscis  of  ungulates,  137. 

Processes,  bird's-hcad,  93. 

Psettus,  100. 

Psiniasis,  197. 

Pterodactyls,  compared  wth  buds,  83. 

IHerodactyla,  wing  of,  77. 

Pucclnia,  129. 

Purpose,  '275. 


QuASi-VEBTEBRAL  theory  of  skull,  186. 


INDEX. 


313 


R. 

I?AnniT  of  Porto  R.infx),  114, 18G. 

Iladial  ossicle,  1!)0. 

IJareficd  air,  cfToct  on  clogs,  118. 

JJattioHMako,  01. 

Itcd  l)ird  of  Pnradiso,  lOG. 

liclntioTifl,  nridlofriral,  171. 

]{o!ati()ii.s,  hornoloijical,  170. 

iJoplilca  compared  with  birds,  83. 

I^otlna,  80. 

iJotricvinp,  virtue  ft  kind  of^  203,  219. 

IJoversion,  cases  of,  137. 

lllic.i,  m. 

IMhs  of  ("ofarea  and  Slrenia,  M. 

Uihs  of  tlyin<r-dniiron,  77,  172. 

I'lolianlaon's  flfrines  of  pigs,  118. 

liogcr  15acon,  2S3. 

lludimentnry  structures,  19, 116. 


S. 


BAnRK-TOOTIIET)  tigpr,  121. 

St.  Aiiguslino,80,  281,  282. 

Bt.  llasil,  30. 

8t.  lUlaire.  M.,  191. 

Bt.  Tliomas  Aquinas,  80,  280,  282. 

Balftinander,  groat,  186. 

Baiter,  Mr.,  1:<S. 

Balvia  oflicinalia,  228. 

Salvia  verlicillata,  228. 

Scapula  of  birds  and  reptiles,  84. 

Schreber,  20. 

Sclerotic,  89. 

Scorpion,  Bting  of,  79. 

Heals,  90. 

Sca-S(]ulrts,  9.''>. 

Seeds,  dissemination  of,  79. 

Bcely,  Mr.,  on  pfcrodactvls,  &i. 

Pegmentjitlfin  of  skull,  1H7. 

Segmenlation  of  sjilne,  186. 

Segments,  similar,  174. 

Self-existence,  208. 

Bomnopithecus,  1.^3. 

Sense,  organ  of,  C4,  82,  88,  89. 

Sensitiveness  of  generative  system,  260. 

Sepia,  90. 

Serpents,  poisonous,  C2. 

Sexual  characters  of  apes,  61. 

Sexual  selection,  GO. 

Sharks,  96. 

Shellfish,  beauty  of.  G7. 

Shells  of  oysters,  102,  112. 

Shielded  grasshopper.  102. 

Silurian  strata,  ItA.  156. 

Simultaneous  modifications,  69. 

Sirenla,  54, 

Sir  John  Lubbock,  212,  219. 

Sir  William  Thomson,  150. 

Sitaris,  59. 

Bix-shftfted  bird  of  Paradise,  104. 

Skull  bones,  167. 

Bkull  segments,  187. 

Sloth,  windpipe  of,  90. 

-i4 


Sinlthncld,  wifosolling  in,  218. 

Snow,  crystals  oi;  200. 

Bole,  4!). 

Solcnodon,  102. 

Species,  meaning  of  word,  14. 

Spelerpcs,  179. 

P|iencer,  see  Herbert  Spencer. 

Bidder  orchi'l,  0^. 

Sitlders,  fliirlit  of.  78. 

Bpino  of  tily|)tod()n,  121. 

Spine,  seginenLation  of,  186. 

8(|nalid(P,  50. 

Bquilla,  17 1. 

Sterility  of  hvbrids,  139. 

Stings.  79. 

Straining  action  of  baleen,  64. 

Struthlous  birds,  83,  1G5. 

Sturgeon,  1^0. 

Suare?,  31.  2^1. 

Substnntiai  forms,  201,  290. 

Sutfcrings  of  beasts,  277. 

Supernatural  action,  209. 

Suj)ernatural  action  not  to  be  looked  for  In 

Nature,  2S. 
Supernumerary  digits,  187, 196. 
By  (is,  1S3,  220. 
Symbolic  conceptions,  207. 
Svmmetrical  diseases.  197. 
ByphllJUc  deposits,  197. 


T. 

TAT>roT,F,'3  beak,  90. 

Tails  of  buttcrtlles,  99. 

Tapir,  137,  148. 

Tarsal  bone.s,  173,  212. 

Teeth  of  Celaec.a,  90. 

Teeth  of  inseetivora,  81. 

Teeth  of  kangaroo  and  Mocroscelldes,  82. 

Teeth  of  seals,  90. 

Teeth  of  sharks,  96. 

Teleoloey  and  evolution  pomnatlble,  291. 

Tendrils  of  climbing  nianta,  121. 

Tenia  echinococcus,  184. 

Teratology,  187. 

Tetragouopterina,  100. 

Thomson.  Sir  William,  160. 

Thoracic  fishes,  51. 

Thorax  of  crustaceans,  93. 

Thylncino,  80. 

Tierra  del  Fuego,  200. 

Tiger,  sabro-toothod,  121. 

Time  reqiilrcd  for  evolution,  143. 

Tope,  ISO. 

Trabecule*  cr.anli,  I'^O. 

Transition.!]  forms,  1 42. 

Transmut/itlonism,  2.'')7. 

Treveivnn,  Sir  .1.  rearock,  114. 

Tnlobites,  149,  155,  185. 

TlInicarle^  95. 

Turbot,  49. 

Turkev,  effects  of  climate  on,  114. 

Turkish  dog,  57. 

Two-gllled  cephslopodi  89. 

Typo,  conformity  to,  257. 


314 


INDEX. 


u. 

UuBiuoAL  vesicle,  95. 
Unj,'uLita,  87,  123. 
Unguluta  eocene,  124. 
Units,  physlolot'lcal,  182,  234. 
Unknowable,  the,  261. 
TIpjKT  Silurian  strata,  IM,  156. 
UrutiicLus,  81. 


V. 

Vaeiabilitt,  different,  degrees  o^  188. 

Ycriniform  appendix,  96. 

Verltln-jo  of  ekull,  186. 

Vcrtobral  column,  17G,  185. 

Vertebrate  limbs,  60,  177. 

Vertical  homolo{,'y,  179. 

Vcbicle,  umbilical,  95. 

"Vestiges  of  Creation,"  15. 

View  hero  advocated,  17. 

Vitreous  humor,  89. 

Vo^'t,  I'rof.,  25,  290. 

Voiio  of  man,  07. 

YoltaU-o,  245. 


"Waoner,  J.  A.,  26. 
AVa;:nur,  Nicholas,  184. 
>Valkln(,'  leaf.  48. 
■Walking-stick  insect,  45. 


Wallace,  Mr.  Alfred,  14,  22,  38,  41,  42,  J8, 
48,  67,  97,  98,  100,  103,  117,  131,  205,  212, 
241,  292,  297,  302. 

Weaver  lishcs,  51. 

Weitbrecht,  195. 

Whale,  fictal  teeth  of,  19. 

Whale,  moutli  of,  53. 

Whalebone,  53. 

Whales.  92. 

White  silk  fowls,  136. 

Wileselling,  2)3. 

Wild  auimal.s,  their  variability,  135. 

Wilder,  I'rof.  Burt,  195,  198. 

Windi)ii)e,  95. 

Wiiif-'s  of  Lats,  birds,  and  pterodactyls,  77, 
144. 

Wings  of  birds,  origin  of,  120. 

Wings  of  Imttertlics,  outline  of,  100. 

Wings  of  llying-<]rag()n,  77,  172. 

Wings  of  humming-hird,  171. 

Wings  of  humming-bird  hawk  moth,  171. 

Wings  of  insects,  78. 

AVombat,  96. 

Women,  old  Fuegian,  206. 

Worms  undergoing  lission,  184,  226.' 

Wyuian,  Dr.  Jellrios,  199. 


Y. 

YoEK  MiNSTEH,  a  Fueglan,  211. 


Z. 

Zebras,  143. 

Zoological  Giirdens,  Superintendent  of.  140. 


THE   END. 


WORKS  OF  nERBERT  SPENCER, 

runUSJIED     DT 

D.    APPX^ETOISr    AND    COMPANY. 

SYSTEM  OF  PHILOSOPHY. 

I.— FIRST   PRINCIPLKS. 

{N'cw  and  Enlarged  Edition.) 
Part  I. — Tfie  TJNKNowAnr.F. 
Paut  II.— Laws  ok  the  Knowadle. 

659  pages.     Price, $2.50 

II.— THE   PRINCIPLES  OF  BIOLOGY.— VOL,   I. 
Part  I. — TtiK  Data  op  Biology. 
Part  II. — Tiik  Inductions  of  Biology. 
Part  III. — The  Evolution  of  Life. 

475  pftgcs.     Price,  - (2.60 

PRINCIPLES  OF  BIOLOGY.— VOL.   II. 

Part  IV. — ^foRrnoLooiCAL  Development. 
Part  V. — Physiological  Development. 
Part  VI. — Law.s  of  M'.ltiplication. 

665  pages.     Price, $2.60 

III.— THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  PSYCHOLOGY. 

Part  I. — The  Data  of  Psychology.     144  pages.     Price,        •  •  (O.TB 

Part  II. — The  Inductions  of  PsYcnoLOOY.     146  pages.     Price,  •  $<i.7ft 
Part  III. — General  Synthesis.     100  pngcs.         /  „  . 

Part  IV.— Special  Synthesis.     112  pages.  f  ^  nee,  -  •  |1.00 

MISCELLANEOUS. 

L— ILLUSTRATIONS  OF  UNIVERSAL  PROGRESS. 
Thirteen  Articles.     451  pages.        Price,        .....        $2.50 

IL— ESSAYS: 

Moral,  Political,  and  .Esthetic. 

Ten  Essays.     S86  pages.     Price,  $2.50 

III.— SOCIAL    STATICS: 
Or  the  Conditions  Essential  to  Human  Happiness  Specified,  and  the 

First  of  them  Developed. 
623  pages.     Price,  l'--60 

IV.— EDUCATION : 

Intellectual,  Moral,  and  Physical. 

283  pages.     Price,  -    • ^^-2' 

v.— CLASSIFICATION   OF  THE   SCIENCES. 
60  pages.     Price, $0.28 

VI.— SPONTANEOUS  GENERATION,  4c. 
16  pages.     Price,       .        .  ...  »    - 


TRE  ORIGIN  OF  CIVILIZATION; 

on,  THE 

PRUIITIVE  CONDITION  OF  MAN 
By  SIR    JOHN    LUBBOCK,  Bart,  M.  P.,  F.  B.  S. 

380    l?ases.    Illiastratocl. 

This  interesting  work  is  the  fruit  of  many  years*  research 
by  an  accomplisljcd  naturalist,  and  one  Avell  trained  in  mod- 
ern scientific  methods,  into  the  mental,  moral,  and  social  con- 
dition of  the  lowest  savage  races.  The  want  of  a  work  of 
this  kind  had  long  been  felt,  and,  as  scientific  methods  aro 
being  morq  and  more  applied  to  questions  of  humanity,  there 
has  been  increasinG:  need  of  a  careful  and  authentic  work  dc- 
scribing  the  conditions  of  those  tribes  of  men  who  ore  lowest 
in  the  scale  of  development. 

"Tills  intercstinp;  work — for  it  is  intensely  so  in  its  aim,  scope,  and  tlie 
ability  of  its  author — treats  of  what  the  scientists  denominate  anthrojwlogy^ 
or  the  natural  history  of  the  human  species;  the  complete  science  of  man, 
body  and  soul,  including  sex,  tenipcrament,  race,  civilization,  etc." — Provi- 
dence Press. 

"A  work  which  is  most  comprehensive  in  its  aim,  and  most  admirable  in 
its  execution.  The  patience  antl  judgment  bestowed  on  the  book  are  every- 
where apparent;  the  mere  list  of  authorities  quoted  giving  evidence  of  wide 
and  impartial  reading.  The  work,  indeed,  is  not  only  a  valuable  one  on  ac- 
count of  the  opinions  it  expresses,  but  it  is  also  most  serviceable  as  a  book 
of  reference.  It  offers  an  able  and  exhaustive  table  of  a  vast  array  of  facts, 
which  no  single  simlent  could  well  obtain  for  himself,  and  it  has  not  been 
made  the  vehicle  for  any  special  pleading  on  the  part  qf  the  author." — • 
London  AtliCiiceum. 

"The  book  is  no  ciirsory  and  superficial  review;  it  goes  to  the  veryhcait 
of  the  sul)ject,  and  embolics  the  results  of  all  the  later  investigations.  It  is 
replete  with  curious  and  (piaint  information  presented  in  a  compact,  luminous, 
and  entertaining  form." — Albany  Evening  Journal. 

"The  treatment  of  the  subjoct  is  eminently  practical,  dealing  more  with 
fact  than  theory,  or  perhaps  it  will  be  more  just  to  say,  dealing  only  with 
theory  amply  sustained  by  fact." — Detroit  Free  Press. 

"This  interesting  and  valuable  volume  illustrates,  to  some  extent,  the 
way  in  which  the  modern  scientilic  spirit  manages  to  extract  a  considerable 
tre;i8ure  from  the  chalF  and  refuse  neglected  or  thrown  aside  by  former  in- 
quirers."— London  Saturday  Review, 

D.  APPLETON  &  00.    Publishers. 


aPENGER8  SYSTEM  OF  PniLOSOPJIY, 


THE  nilLOSOPIIY  OF  EVOLUTION. 


By  HERBERT  SPENCER. 


1  hlB  proat  flyptom  offlclontinc  thnnpht,  Hir*  mo-t  orl;:lTml  «n.1  Importflnt  mr^- 
t«l  uiidortnking  of  tho  npe,  to  which  Mr.  Spencer  has  devoted  his  IKc,  Jb  no\T  nell 
advnuccd,  tho  puhlishcd  vohiiin-?  boiiip:  Firnt  IHndplef,  The  Princfj>Uj  of  Hi- 
olorrj,  two  vohiracs,  and  The  Principles  qf  Psychology,  toI.  1.,  which  will  bo 
ehortiy  printed. 

Tills  philosophical  system  dlfTcrs  from  ail  Its  prcdcccs«ors  In  being  sniidly 
bapcd  on  the  sciences  of  observation  and  Induction  ;  In  reprenentinp  the  ortl<^r 
and  course  of  Nafnre;  In  bringing  Nature  and  man,  life,  mind,  and  inclely.  nnder 
one  great  law  of  action  ;  and  in  developing  a  metho<l  of  thonglit  wliirh  ni.iy  sorre 
for  practical  guidance  In  dealing  willi  the  alTalrs  of  life.  That  Mr.  Spencer  Is  the 
man  for  this  great  work  will  bo  evident  from  the  following  et.Mlemcnts: 

"The  only  complete  and  systematic  statement  of  the  doctrine  of  Erolntlon 
with  which  I  am  acquainted  Is  that  contained  In  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer's  'System 
of  PliUoeophy ; '  a  work  which  should  be  carefully  studied  by  all  who  desire  to 
know  whither  sclentitlc  thought  is  tending."— T.  II.  Hu.\lkt. 

••  Of  all  onr  thinkers,  he  Is  the  one  who  has  fonncd  to  himself  the  largest  new 
BChemc  of  a  systematic  philosophy." — Prof.  Masson. 

"If  any  individual  Influence  Is  visibly  encroaching  on  Mills  In  this  country.  It 
IB  his."— /Wc?. 

"Mr.  Spencer  is  one  of  the  most  vigorooB  as  well  as  boldest  'ULkcra  that 
English  speculation  has  yet  produced." — .Toitn  Stuakt  Mill. 
"  One  of  the  acutest  mctnphysicians  of  modern  times." — [bid. 

"  One  of  our  deepest  thinkers." — Dr.  Joseph  D.  IIookeh. 

It  is  qnc!'tionablo  If  any  thinker  of  finer  calibre  has  appear'rl  J,i  onr  coun- 
try."—QEonaR  IIen-rt  Lewes. 

"He  alone,  of  all  British  thinkers,  has  organized  a  philosophy."— y7><(/. 

"  lie  Is  as  keen  an  analyst  as  is  known  In  the  history  of  plillot.oi<l.T ;  I  do  not 
except  cither  Aristotle  or  Kant."— Georok  Riplet. 

"If  we  were  lo  glvo  onr  own  Judgment,  wo  should  say  that,  since  Newton, 
thero  has  not  In  England  been  a  philosopher  of  more  remarkable  spo^ulAtlve  and 
lystcmatizing  talent  tlian  (in  spite  of  some  errors  and  some  narrowness)  Mr.  Her- 
bert Spencer."— Zoncfon  Saturday  Review. 

"  We  cannot  refrain  from  offering  onr  tribute  of  respect  to  one  who,  whether 
for  the  extent  of  his  positive  knowledge,  or  for  the  profiindify  of  his  spcculmlT* 
Insight,  has  already  achieved  a  name  second  to  none  In  the  whole  rnngt  of  K^s^ 
llsh  philosophy,  and  who=e  works  will  worthily  su'taln  the  crc<lll  of  Engllsk 
IbouKbt  in  tho  present  generation."—  WettuiitvUr  Jifvifte. 


D.  AppJeton  &  Compamfs  Publications. 

LAY   SEEMOiTS, 
ADDKESSES,    AND    EEYIEWS, 

By  THOMAS  HENRY  HUXLEY. 

Cloth,  12mo.      390  pages.       Price,  $1.75 

Tnis  is  tlio  latest  and  most  popular  of  tlio  works  of  tliis  in- 
trepid ami  accomplished  English  thinker.  The  American  edition 
of  the  work  is  the  latest,  and  contains,  in  addition  to  the  English 
edition.  Professor  Huxley's  recent  masterly  address  on  "  Spon- 
taneous Generation,"  delivered  heforo  the  British  Association  for 
the  Advancement  of  Science,  of  which  he  was  president. 

The  following  is  from  an  ahle  article  in  the  Independent : 

The  •'  Lay  Sermons,  Addresses,  and  Reviews  "  is  a  book  to  be  read 
by  every  one  wlio  would  keep  up  with  the  advance  of  truth — as  well  by 
tliose  who  arc  liostile  as  thotiC  who  are  friendly  to  his  conclusions.  In 
It,  scientific  and  [)hilosophieal  topics  are  handled  with  consuinmiitc  abil- 
ity. It  is  reniarkablc  for  purity  of  style  and  power  of  ex{)rcssi()n.  No- 
where, in  any  modern  work,  is  the  advancement  of  the  pursuit  of  that 
natural  knowledge,  which  is  of  vital  importance  to  bodily  and  mental 
well-being,  so  ably  handled. 

Professor  Hu.xley  is  undoubtedly  the  representative  scientific  roan  of 
the  age.  His  reverence  for  the  right  and  devotion  to  truth  have  estab- 
lished his  leadership  of  modern  scientific  thought.  He  leads  the  beliefs 
and  aspirations  of  the  increasingly  powerful  body  of  the  younger  men  of 
Bcience.  His  ability  for  research  is  niarvellous.  There  is  possible  no  more 
equipoise  of  judgment  than  that  to  which  he  brings  the  phenomena  of 
Nature.  Besides,  he  is  not  a  mere  scientist.  His  is  a  popularized  phi- 
losophy  ;  social  questions  have  been  treated  by  his  pen  in  a  manner  most 
masterly.  In  his  popular  addresses,  embracing  the  widest  range  of  top- 
ics, he  treads  on  ground  with  which  he  seems  thoroughly  familiar. 

There  are  those  who  hold  the  name  of  Professor  Huxley  as  synony- 
mous with  irreverence  and  atheism.  Plato's  was  so  held,  and  Galileo's, 
und  Uescartes's,  and  Newton's,  and  Faraday's.  There  can  be  no  greater 
mistake.  No  man  has  greater  reverence  for  the  Bible  than  Huxley.  No 
one  more  acquaintance  with  the  text  of  Scripture.  He  believes  there  is 
definite  government  of  the  universe  ;  that  pleasures  and  pains  are  distrib- 
uted in  accoiilance  with  law  ;  and  that  the  certain  proportion  of  evd 
woven  up  in  the  life  even  of  worms  will  help  the  man  '^ho  thinks  to  bear 
bis  own  share  with  courage. 

In  the  estimate  of  Professor  Huxley's  future  influence  upon  science, 
his  youth  and  health  form  a  large  element.  He  has  just  pbs.sed  his  tbrty- 
fifth  year.  If  God  spare  his  life,  truth  can  liardly  fail  to  be.  the  gainer 
from  a  mind  that  is  stored  with  knowledge  of  the  laws  of  the  Creator's 
operations,  and  that  has  learned  to  love  all  beauty  and  h&t«^  a'j  vilcues>t  of 
Nature  and  art. 


THE  OrJGIN  OF  SPECIES, 

By  CHARLES   DARWIN. 


A  new  American  edition  of  "The  Origin  of  Ppocios,"  later  than  the  latrM 
En^'lish  edition,  lias  just  been  published,  with  the  author's  most  recent  cor- 
rections  nml  additions. 

In  the  whole  history  of  the  proj,'ress  of  knowledge  there  is  no  case  «o  ro- 
mnrkable  of  a  system  of  doctrines,  at  first  generally  condonino<i  ns  false  and 
al)gurd,  coming  into  general  acceptance  In  the  scientific  world  in  a  ningle 
decade  From  the  following  statement'^,  the  reader  will  infer  tlio  c!«timat< 
that  is  now  placed  upon  the  man  and  his  works  by  the  highest  authorities. 

"Personally  and  practically  exercised  in  zoology,  in  minute  anatomy,  in 
geology  ;  a  student  of  geographical  distribution,  not  on  n)aps  and  in  miisourna 
only,  but  by  long  voyages  and  laborious  collection  ;  having  largely  n«Jvaiicod 
each  of  these  branches  of  science,  and  having  spent  many  years  In  gatlicring 
and  sifting  materials  for  his  present  work,  the  store  of  accurafcly-rcgislcred 
facts  upon  which  the  author  of  the  'Origin  of  Species'  is  able  to  draw  at 
will  is  prodigious." — Prof.  T.  II.  Huxley. 

'*  Far  abler  men  than  myself  may  confess  fliat  they  have  not  that  untiring 
patience  in  accumulating,  and  that  wonderful  skill  in  using,  hrge  masses  of 
fuels  of  the  most  varied  kind — that  wide  and  accurate  physiological  knowl- 
edge— that  aeuteness  in  devising,  that  skill  in  carrying  out  experiuteiit*,  and 
tliat  admirable  stylo  of  ccinposition,  at  once  clear,  persuasive,  and  ju-lieial, 
qualities  which,  in  their  harmonious  combination,  mark  out  Mr.  Darwin  as 
the  man,  perhaps  of  all  men  now  living,  best  fitted  for  the  great  work  ho 
has  undertaken  and  accomplished." — Alfred  Russell  Wallace, 

In  Germany  these  views  arc  rapidly  extending.  Prof.  Hifkik,  a  distin. 
guishcd  British  geologist,  attended  the  recent  Congress  of  German  Natural- 
ists and  Physicians,  at  Innspruck,  in  which  some  eight  hundred  $avanU 
were  present,  and  thus  writes: 

"What  specially  struck  me  was  the  universal  sway  which  the  writings 
of  Darwin  now  exercise  over  the  German  mind.  You  sec  it  on  every  side,  in 
private  conversation,  in  printed  papers,  in  all  the  many  sections  into  wliich 
such  a  meeting  as  that  at  Innspruck  divides.  Darwin's  name  is  often  men- 
tioned, and  always  with  the  profoundest  veneration.  Hut  even  where  no  al- 
lusion is  specially  made  to  him,  nay,  even  more  markedly,  where  such  allusion 
is  absent,  we  see  how  thoroughly  his  doctrines  have  permeated  the  acientilio 
mind,  even  in  those  departments  of  knowledge  which  mi^ht  seem  at  first 
sight  to  be  farthest  from  natural  history.  'You  are  still  discussing  in  Eng- 
land,' said  a  German  friend  to  me,  '  whether  or  not  the  theory  of  Darwin  can 
be  true.  We  have  got  a  long  way  beyond  that  here.  His  theory  is  now  our 
common  starting-point.'     And,  so  far  as  my  experience  went,  I  found  it  le 

b6  80." 

33.    APPr^KTON    Ac    CO..    3?ubliHhcm. 


W(n  ks  of  Herbert  Spencer  published  by  D.  dpplcton  db  Co. 
A  NEW  SYSTEM  OF  PIIILOPOPUY. 

FIRST    PRINCIPLES. 

*  VoL    loj'ge  12mo.    616  Pa^es.    Price  $2  60. 

Contents : 

PAIIT  FiiiST. —  y'he  Unknowable. 

Ouaptei  1,  Religion  and  Soicnto;  II.  Ultiniute  Religious  ideas;  III 
Dltiiuate  Scientific  Ideas;  IV.  The  Relativity  of  all  Knowledge;  V  Tl;» 
Rtconciliatiun. 

Part  Second. — Laws  of  the  Knowable. 

I.  I^ws  in  General;  II.  The  Law  of  Evolution;  III.  The  same  con- 
tinued;  IV.  The  Causes  of  Evolution;  V.  Space,  Time,  Matter,  Motion,  and 
Force;  VI.  The  Indestructibility  of  Matter;  VII.  The  Continuity  of  Motion  ; 
Vlll.  The  Persistence  of  Force;  IX.  The  Correlation  and  Equivalence  of 
Forces;  X.  The  Direction  of  Motion  ;  XI.  The  Rhythm  of  Motion  ;  XII.  The 
Conditions  Essential  to  Evolution;  Xlll.  The  Instability  of  the  iloinoge- 
neous;  XIV.  The  Multiplication  of  Ellects;  XV.  Diflerentiation  ^.nd  Inte- 
gration ;  XVI.  Equilibration ;  XVIL  Summary  and  Conclusion. 

In  the  first  part  of  tliis  work  Mr.  Spencer  defines  the  province,  limits,  and 
relations  of  religion  and  eciencc,  and  determines  the  legitimate  bopo  of 
philosophy. 

In  part  second  he  unfolds  those  fimdamental  principles  which  have  been 
arrived  at  within  the  sphere  of  the  knowable;  which  are  true  of  all  orders 
of  phenonema,  and  thus  constitute  the  foundation  of  all  philosophy.  The 
law  of  Evolution,  Mr.  Spencer  maintains  to  be  universal,  and  he  has  hcr« 
worked  it  out  as  the  basis  of  his  system. 

These  First  Principles  are  the  foundation  of  a  system  of  Philosopfaj 
bolder,  more  elaborate,  and  comprehensive  perhaps,  than  any  other  which 
oat  been  hitherto  designed  in  England. — British  Quario'li/  Review. 

A  work  lofty  in  aim  and  remarkable  in  executioa  —  Coi'rJiill  Mayozint. 

In  the  works  of  Herbert  Spencer  we  have  the  rudiments  of  a  posiitiva 
Tiipology,  and  an  inmiense  step  toward  the  perfection  of  the  science  of  Y^y 
Ci\  ology. —  Christian  Exam  in  er. 

If  we  miiitake  not,  in  spite  of  the  very  negative  character  of  his  owr.  ro 
tnlts,  be  has  foreshadowed  some  strong  arguments  for  the  doctrine  of  a  poai- 
lite  Christian  Theology. — New  Enylandtr. 

As  far  as  tie  frontiers  of  knowledge,  where  the  Intellect  may  go,  theie  ta 
to  'iving  man  whose  guidance  may  more  safely  be  trusteil. — jitlanLt 
y^.ftJdti. 


Worh  vf  lierhert  Spencer  piUithed  by  D.  ApjJrion  d'  Co. 


IIJ.USTJiniOiNS  OF  UNIVERSAL  rUOGIlESS. 

A   SERIES   OF   DISCUSSIONS. 

1  Vol     Larsre  12mo.    470  Pajres.    Prico    $2.59. 

CONTENTS : 

ikmencan  Notice  of  Spencer's  New  System  of  riiilosophy. 
I      Progrops  :  Its  Law  and  Cause, 
II      Manners  and  Kashton. 

III.  The  Genesis  of  Science. 

IV.  Tlic  P)\ysiology  of  Lauglitcr. 

V.  The  Origin  and  Function  of  Music 

VI.  The  Nobular  Hypothesis. 

VII.  Ball  on  tlie  Emotions  and  the  Will. 

VIII.  Illogiciil  Geology. 

IX.  The  Development  Ilypothcsis. 

X.  The  Social  Organism. 

XI.  Use  and  Beauty. 

XII.  The  Sources  of  Architectural  Types. 

XIII.  The  Obc  of  Anthropomorphism. 

These  Essf^ys  consHtutc  a  body  of  ninsBivc  and  original  thouphi  upoti  ■ 
farge  variety  of  important  topics,  and  will  be  read  with  pleasure  by  all  who 
a})prcciate  a  bold  and  powerful  treatment  of  ftuidamcntal  themes.  Th* 
l^cneral  thought  which  pervades  this  book  is  beyond  doubt  the  most  irajwr- 
tant  that  the  human  mind  has  yet  reached. — N.  Y.  hulrpmdent. 

Those  who  have  read  the  work  on  Education,  will  remember  tlie  an*. 
lytic  tendency  of  the  author's  mind — liis  clear  perception  and  admirable  ex- 
position of  :irst  principles — his  wide  grasp  of  facts — his  lucid  and  viporoua 
style,  and  the  constant  and  controlling  bearing  of  the  discussion  on  practical 
results.  These  traits  characterize  all  Mr.  Spencer's  writings,  and  mark,  in 
an  eminent  degree,  the  present  volume. — N.  Y.  T^iburu. 

We  regard  the  distinguishing  feature  of  this  work  to  be  the  peculiarly 
Interesting  character  of  its  matter  to  the  general  reader.  This  is  a  grrat 
literary  as  well  as  philosophic  triumph.  In  the  evolution  of  a  system  of 
Pliilosophy  which  demands  serious  attention,  and  a  keen  exercise  of  the  in- 
tellect to  fathom  and  Hi)prcciate,  he  has  mingled  much  that  is  really  populAi 
%nd  entertaimng. — RocJicslcr  DanocraL 


WorkM  of  Herbert  Spencer  pxulishcd  by  D.  Aj^/jkuon  de  Vo. 


ESSAYS: 

MORAL    POLITICAL,  AND  ESTIlEriO. 

9 

In  one  Volume.    Lar^e  12nio. 

CONTENTS : 

T.  Tbe  Pliilosophy  of  Style. 

II.  Over-Legirflutioa. 

III.  Morals  of  Trade. 

IV.  Piji-donal  Beauty. 

\ .  Representative  (loveriimcnt. 

VI.  I'lisoii-lilliics. 

VII.  Kuilnay  Morals  and  Railway  Policy. 

VI 11,  (jraeefiilness. 

IX.  Stale  Taiuperings  with  Money  and  IJunks. 

X.  Uefurni ;  the  I)>in;;ers  and  the  Sale<j,iiaida. 

A  1^0, 

SOCIAL    STATICS; 

OR, 

rilE   CONDITIONS   ESSENTIAL   TO    HUMAN   HAPPINESS 

SPECIFIED,    AND   THE    FIRST   OF   THEM 

DEVELOPED. 

In  one  Volume.    Larg-e  12mo. 

All  Ibeflo  works  are  rich  In  materials  for  forming  1ntelllf,'ont  opinions,  even  whi>r* 
W6  arc  uuublo  to  ugn-c  wllli  tliosi-  put  forth  by  the  iiiithor.  Much  iimy  be  Kunuid  IVdUi 
iLbiu  lu  (lepartmeuls  in  which  our  common  lulucatioual  Bystiui  is  very  deficient.  Tba 
t((ive  citizen  may  derive  from  Ihem  uccurato  systematized  information  concerning  ))ia 
highest  duties  to  society,  and  the  iMinciiiles  on  which  they  are  based.  lie  may  gain 
ilsarer  notions  of  the  vulue  and  bearing  of  evi<leuee,  and  be  better  able  to  distinguish 
'ffctwoen  facts  and  lnfcrent;es.  lie  may  find  common  things  suggestive  of  wiser  thought 
— naj,  wo  will  venture  lu  say  of  truer  emotion — than  before.  l>y  giving  us  fulKT  re.iU- 
tttloas  of  liberty  and  justice  his  writings  will  tend  to  increase  our  self-reliance  in  th« 
rrvat  mierifency  orf  civilization  to  \shich  we  have  been  summoueU.— ^f/</n//e  Monthly 


Worh  o/  Herbert  Spencer  pubhsficd  by  D.  Appltioti  dt  (Jo 
A    NEW   SYSTEM   OF   PUILOSOrilY. 

PliJNClPLES  OF  BIOLOGY. 

T'ifl  work  is  now  in  course  of  publication  in  quarterly  numbors  (fi-om  *0 
lo  100  pages  each),  by  subscription,  at  $2  per  annum.  It  is  to  form  two  vol- 
ontca,  of  \^hich  the  first  is  nearly  completed,  four  numbers  having  been 
.fisued.  While  it  comprises  a  statement  of  those  general  principles  and  lawi 
ftf  life  to  which  science  has  attained,  it  is  stamped  with  a  marked  originaUty» 
both  In  tho  views  propounded  and  in  the  method  of  treating  the  subject.  Il 
will  be  a  standard  and  Invaluable  work.  Some  Idea  of  the  discussion  may 
be  formed  by  glancing  over  a  few  of  the  first  chapter  headings. 

Part  Fihst. — Data  of  Biology. 

I.  Organic  Matter;  II.  The  actions  of  Forces  on  Organic  Matter;  III 
The  Reactions  of  Organic  Matter  on  Forces;  IV.  Proximate  DcGnition  of 
Life;  V.  The  Correflpondcnce  between  Life  and  its  Circumstances;  VI.  The 
Degree  of  Life  Varies  with  the  Degree  of  Correspondence ;  VII   Scope  of 
Biology. 

Part  Second. — Inddctions  or  Bioi.oai. 

L  Growth;  II.  Development;  III.  Function;  IV.  Waste  and  Hcpaii  , 
V.  Adaptation;  VL  Individuality;  VIL  Gcnesife;  VIII.  IIere<lity ;  IX. 
Variation;  X.  Genesis,  Heredity,  and  Variation;  XI.  Classificalioii ;  XIL 
Distribution, 

• 

Mr  Spencer  is  equally  remarkable  for  his  search  after  first  prinnpW; 
for  hi:*  acute  attempts  to  decompose  mental  phenomena  into  their  primary 
Oementa ;  and  for  his  broad  generalizations  of  mental  activity,  mind  in  cotv 
necti.ju  with  instinct,  and  all  the  analogies  presented  by  life  in  it«  unlTcrMl 
iilK^'^ — Medico- Chirtirfficat  Review. 


fVorti  of  Ilerbert  Spencer  published  by  D.  Appleton  A  Co. 
la  One  Volume,  8vo.,  Cloth.  Price    $2.50. 


SOCIAL     STATICS; 

OB, 

THE    CONDITIONS   ESSENTIAL   TO    HUMAN    IIAPriNESS    BPECI* 
FIED,  AND  THE  EIKST  OIVTHEM  DEVELOrED. 

BY     IIERBEKT     SPENCEK. 


OPINIONS  OF  THE  PIiES3. 


Mr.  Sponcer,  In  his  able  and  logical  work  on  "  Social  Statics  "  .  .  .  .  Edin- 
turgh  lievieio. 

It  deserves  very  liigh  pralso  for  the  ability,  clearness,  and  force  with  whieli 
It  Is  written,  and  which  entitle  It  to  the  character,  now  so  rare,  of  a  really  sub- 
Blautlul  booic. — North  British  Review. 

A  remarkable  work Mr.  Spencer  exhibits,  and  exhibits  with  re- 
markable force  and  clearness,  many  social  equulizutions  of  a  just  and  right 
Bpecies  which  remain  yet  to  bo  eifected. — Britiah  Quurterli/  liecieio. 

An  Inquiry  conducted  throughout  witli  clearness,  gootl  tiinjjer,  and  strict  • 

logic Wc  shall  bo  mistaken  if  this  book  do  not  assist  in  organising  that  I 

huge  mass  of  thought  wliich,  for  want  of  a  more  specific  name,  is  now  called 
Liberal  Ojiinion. — Alhemvuin. 

It  is  the  most  eloquent,  the  most  interesting,  the  most  clearly-expressed  and 
logically -reasoned  work,  with  views  the  most  original,  that  has  appeared  in  tho 
Bclence  of  social  i)olity. — Literary  Gazette. 

The  author  of  tho  present  work  is  no  ordinary  thinker,  and  no  ordinary  wri- 
ter; and  he  gives  us,  in  language  that  sparkles  with  beauties,  and  in  reasoning 
at  once  novel  an<l  elaborate,  precise  and  logical,  a  very  comprehensive  and 

complete  exposition  of  the  rights  of  men  in  society Tho  book  will 

mark  an  epoch  in  the  literature  of  scientific  morality. — Economist. 

"We  remember  no  work  on  ethics  since  that  of  Spinoza  to  be  compared  with 
It  In  the  simplicity  of  its  premises,  and  tho  logical  rigour  with  which  a  com- 
plete system  of  scientific  ethics  Is  evolved  from  them A  work  at  once 

80  sclontiflc  in  spirit  and  method,  and  so  popular  in  execution,  we  shall  look  in 
vain  for  through  libraries  of  political  philoso])hy. — Leader. 

The  careful  reading  wo  have  given  it  has  both  afforded  us  Intense  pleasure, 
and  rendered  It  a  duty  to  express,  with  unusual  emphasis,  our  opinion  of  itt 
gre»4  ability  and  excellence.— A'cncon/yrmi'tft 


New  York:   D.  Appleton  and  Compant, 


\ 


This  preservation  photocopy  was  made 

at  BookLab.  Inc.  in  comphance  with  copyright  law. 

The  paper  meets  the  requirements  of  ANSl/NISO 

Z39.48-1992  (Permanence  of  Paper) 


Austin  1997 


